posted on March 15, 2001 08:57:29 PM
This morning in the NY Times Bush said, "I'm sorry people are losing value in their portfolios. (The first that I've seen that indicates that he's even aware of that fact) But with the right policies, I'm confident our economy will recover. The right policies, fiscal policies. And that means giving people money back, in plain language."
Sorry George, that's not the way it works.
When seasoned economists start coming out of the woodwork to badmouth Bush's economic policy, you know we're in trouble. Not because of the impending recession, we knew that was coming for almost a year, but because Bush is purposely making it worse to serve his ill-informed idea that passing a tax cut bill will somehow solve our economic problem, but it won't. While we all know that having confidence in the economy is considered by economists to be one of the three or four factors in having a robust economy, Bush is doing eveything he can to badmouth the present economy, all in the name of his tax cut. We had to destroy the village to save it.
Last week economic elder John Kenneth Galbraith jumped into the fray with great trepidation: "I am not, in my own view or that of others, a plausible political adviser to the Bush administration, but I would like to suggest that it could be on course for a powerful political disaster.Following a period of insane speculation, we are thought now to be facing a recession, possibly even, so far as there is a difference, a depression." Galbraith pointed to Bush's tax cut plan as a major culprit: "This, as support to the economy, was announced immediately by President Bush on taking office. Most of the benefit, as now more than amply agreed, goes to the very affluent. In an economic downturn,those so favored do not spend, because they have no particular need. That is an aspect of wealth. And given the uncertainties of the economy,they do not readily initiate or invest. It is true that middle- and lower-income folk do spend, but they do not get a significant share of the benefit, and the very poor get none at all. And such expenditure as there is here goes for the daily necessities of life, not for the things on which recovery depends. To repeat, those of middle and lower income are not the beneficiaries in any case. The effect of tax reduction is not on the economy but on the pleasure and political gratitude of those who receive it."
Bill Clinton, when all is said and done, looks to be the winner of the 'last laugh' contest. He said "It's about the economy, stupid".
posted on March 15, 2001 10:25:40 PM
Isn't it ironic that just yesterday the same paper you've quoted published another article stating:
In his comments, first to reporters and then in a speech to several chambers of commerce here, Mr. Bush seemed intent on conveying at least a glancing sense of optimism after months in which Democrats have accused him of talking down the economy as a way of building support for his $1.6 trillion tax cut.
"I've got great faith in our economy," Mr. Bush said.
The analysis provided by John Kenneth Galbraith seems a little goofy to me. It sounds like he's the one who "doesn't get it." I wonder if he's ever taken Math 101?
The "tax cut" is technically a tax reimbursement. So, of course the persons who are paying the most will naturally be reimbursed the most. And, as always many of them will put the money back into building their businesses which happen to hire people... which tends to feed/stimulate the economy. It seems reasonable to assume that the growth of these businesses will directly benefit the lower to middle income employee's that they hire. And, his claim that the lower and middle income won't benefit directly is misleading at best. Every scenario I've looked at shows that as a middle incomer I'll save a nice chunk of change under this plan. As for the lower income folks - as I understand it there will be at least another 5 million people dropped from paying any taxes at all. And, surprise of all surprises - the ones who don't pay anything won't be reimbursed anything. The only way to avoid that scenario would be to play Robin Hood with the higher income earners/tax payers money.
jeeez, I must have a higher fever than I thought. I'm actually reading/responding to political threads again. Quick, someone find me a cold towel for my forehead.
posted on March 15, 2001 10:48:49 PM
Don't feel bad. When our Canadian Prime Minister was told how great computers would be for 3rd world countries such as Africa, he asked why they didn't have them already. "You need phone lines to connect", he was told. So being as smart as he is, he replied
"what about cell phones?".........
posted on March 15, 2001 11:52:30 PM
I voted for Clinton Twice and Gore once. I almost voted for the other jerk from Texas the first time and the National-sell-out, Ralphie this last time. I'm a Clinton supporter and I don't care who reads this.
Clinton: lied to the American People.
Dubya : lied to the American People.
Clinton smoked marijuana and denied it.
Dubya did cocain and admitted it, but denied other drugs reportedly used by him.
Clinton is a Rhodes Scholar.
Dubya's dad bought him a Harvard degree.
Clinton won a Nobel Peace Prize.
Dubya's butt-for-brains may be getting us into a war with North Korea.
Clinton has a wife that is good enough to win office in New York.
Dubya's wife killed someone by running a stop sign.
Clinton sent Gore all over the world to get experience in foreign affairs.
Cheney sends Dubya out to get experience in domestic affairs.
No, I wish we could have had another 40 more years of Clinton - 40 more years of economic growth. With Dubya, we can look forward to many years of recession. Who voted for that jerk anyway?
You have an oversimplistic faith in misguidance and platitutes it seems if you truly believe what you say in;
"The "tax cut" is technically a tax reimbursement. So, of course the persons who are paying the most will naturally be reimbursed the most. And, as always many of them will put the money back into building their businesses which happen to hire people... which tends to feed/stimulate the economy. It seems reasonable to assume that the growth of these businesses will directly benefit the lower to middle income employee's that they hire".
You speak of the rich "using their tax benefits to building their businesses biut you neglect to propose who it is that will pay for those business products and services. Unless them folks sell stuff they ain't hirin nobody. Do you think that economic health is built on groceries? Like the four basic food groups of fiscal well being?
The 'rich' as you call them don't run businesses, they invest in them, or not, depending on the prospects for success they perceive in those businesses. When the economy is suffering no one in their right mind invests in anything but the safety of what they've accumulated and gold futures doesn't feed many kids or hire the kid's daddies.
You went to the great pains to bold your hero's remark about his great faith. I think that directly it was "I'm confident that the economy will recover", but either or both ways why is he just now starting to try to politic people's feelings about it? Did he just become aware that the market has plummeted since his inauguration? Or does he see that the concerns over the economy may stand in the way of his pet tax cut? Faith is very nice, George, but it doesn't pay the fiddler and the economy will not recover if you're fiddling yourself as it burns to the ground. In short, faith doesn't really move mountains. I don't personally know anybody who gives a damn about his stupid tax cut, but I know a heck of a lot of people who care very much that their investments are worth half of what they were six months ago.
How you can presume to say that Galbraith doesn't make sense is beyond me. Had you never heard of him before? Might want to research a little on that, but he is by no means alone in his views. Yesterday in the NY Times fellow economist Paul Krugman said Bush wants to "spread fear" to get his way: "Officials at...the White House...have been making things worse....Ari Fleischer et al. [are] doing their best to spread panic, in the belief that fear sells tax cuts." During the battle for Florida Bush spokesman and voodoo economist James Baker kept saying that the stock market was going down due to the battle for the presidency, so there was an immediate need for Bush to be declared the winner in order that the stock market would rebound. Given that logic, the stock market must really be pissed that Bush, not Gore, was given the nod by the Supreme Court. Krugman has a different view: "Right now we are in a race between the natural forces of recovery and the self-reinforcing forces of contraction. The manufacturing slump that began last year was mainly an inventory cycle: companies produced too much, and then
cut back their production in an effort to get rid of the excess. If that were the whole story, the economy would soon bounce back of its own accord. But it isn't the whole story: the manufacturing slump, falling stock prices and a general climate of nervousness are undermining both consumer and business confidence."
See, there it is again, that word confidence. If you have reason at all to follow the market then you should know that buying (rising economy) occurs when consumers and business are able to feel confident that they won't be throwing their money down a well. To think that this paltry tax bill will recharge the economy, read confidence in the future economic well being of the country, is not just stupid, it's, well, Dumbya.
The little not so good ol' boy in the white house has no clue other than that if he hopes ever to be reelected he'd better "Play Ball!" with his primary contributors, and to hell with the people.
I actually, rustily, recall it was more of Jeffersonian ideology than an actual quote. Though I do believe it has become a bit of a cliche.
I have somehow overlooked reading Kipling, or it was never required in school. Hmmm...note to self. So can't really say.
Any recommendations where to start?
posted on March 16, 2001 03:21:56 AM
Lets consider a moderate millionaire - someone who is worth maybe $10 million - I happen to know several people like that well enough to go to dinner with them even though I don't have that much money.
They have either a very good job with a large corperation or several family businesses.
One fellow I know has an excellant job with a stockbrokerage firm AND his own beer distributing company and a couple smaller businesses.
What are they going to do with their increased income from a tax cut and how will it effect their spending?
One couple has two businesses each had before the marraige. They limit themselves to $375,000 a year to spend on themselves and put the rest back into the businesses. However with the slowdown they have experienced a big drop in their investments and not being aggressive about stocks they will not put any more into them until they see a sustained recover. Demand will fall off at their businesses so they may lay people off and it will be a time to cut costs not hire new people or make investments in new equipment. They will put the funds into money market type cash investments.
The only person I can think of who may see increased business is a real estate brokerage owner who will have lots of expensive houses to sell as white collar auto company workers are given pink slips. However the market to BUY those houses will be depressed and many of them will be bought by the company laying the people off as they have contracts to buy the house if it won't sell after a set period - 3 or 4 months - at a break even price. He will not have to hire any new people or equipment to handle the load. He isa the sort who will buy luxury items when he has an unexpected bit of money. But he is not going to run out and buy his wife an expensive piece of jewelry when they are just plugging along in his eyes.
These are people who don't think at all about will we have money to pay for groceries. They don'y even worry about can I afford a new car? That is just a needed thing and no big deal. THey will hesitate to buy a new house or take a big expensive vacation if the "feel" poor because the big bucks are not rolling in. It is a different world they live in.
posted on March 16, 2001 03:37:46 AM
The rich should get a big tax break? NOT.
If Amerika was so bad tax-wise for the rich, they'd live elsewhere. The rich should pay more for living in a country that has given them so much.
You want to stimulate the economy? Make sure consumers have money left over after necessities. The rich always will.
Do you think the rich do without because of a $450 utility bill? Or because of any of the other things that the rest of us have to budget for?
As for "Trickle On (the middle class)" economics - it's a failed experiment.
Oh yeah, and just a really simple idea: don't give money away to anyone based on a projection.
The reality is that Bush is a lackey for the rich - if they say bend over, he bends - which actually I wouldn't mind. However, Bush making the middle class bend over and take it to please his rich buddies is disgusting.
posted on March 16, 2001 04:26:57 AM
We can all be stupid together I am a average person--- I know nothing about money- average guy is loosing all that money on the market.. ---Taking finanacial advice from crazy people. The nasdaq is going down and then it will go back up again when the rich and Bush's rich folks will allow it do so----and oh the gains more for the rich---
Oh those slam dunkin stocks---
This is all the bigslam---Its--Only money---
You have an oversimplistic faith in misguidance and platitutes it seems if you truly believe what you say in
That would be platitudes?
BTW, if anyone else said that I'd take offense. But, since it's you I know you only meant it in the kindest way.
In part, you're right. In all honesty I think that by the time this tax cut reaches reality it won't have enough juice left to stimulate a gnats ass. Too bad. According to several economist I've read and heard in the last few weeks - if it were pushed through fast enough and frontloaded a lot more - it might make a difference. But, the warring parties will make sure that it is diluted and delayed until it means nothing. I call it politics as usual. Don't forget my mantra... they're all a bunch of crooks and liars.
As for Galbraith I may not agree with him on everything but I think we'll both agree he makes some good points in this Newsweek article:
John Kenneth Galbraith, the economist and writer, coined the phrase “conventional wisdom” more than four decades ago in his 1958 best-selling book, “The Affluent Society.” As Galbraith defined it, the conventional wisdom embodied the prevailing set of beliefs about any particular subject or topic. The beliefs didn’t have to be correct. They simply had to be widely held and respectable. Since then, the term has gradually filtered into everyday language, and although Galbraith’s original meaning has survived, it has also inspired modern variations. Galbraith’s conventional wisdom was solid, staid, and pervasive; newer versions often connote what’s trendy, intellectually fashionable, or hip. But whether new or old, the conventional wisdom is (as Galbraith noted) frequently wrong.
Sometimes it is the opposite of the truth. More often it is an artful and selective arranging of facts and perceptions that creates a plausible—though misleading—rendering of reality.
But it endures because it tells a story that, at one level or another, is appealing. The conventional wisdom draws its power from this ability to fulfill some psychological or political need. Our behavior then reinforces our beliefs.
We see what we want to see. We hear what we want to hear. We search for authorities to repeat and strengthen our beliefs and prejudices. “In some measure the articulation of the conventional wisdom is a religious rite,” Galbraith wrote. “It is an act of affirmation like reading from the Scriptures or going to church.”
I agree with him 100%. It only makes sense for us to look for others who share and support our own positions. That's just life in America... why shouldn't it be the same at the Round Table?
Not paranoid anywhere else but here!
edited for bad ubb
[ edited by mybiddness on Mar 16, 2001 10:25 AM ]
posted on March 16, 2001 10:34:54 AMGeorge just doesn't get it"
Well, he's not alone. I'm listening to the TV, right now, where callers are calling in discussing an interesting issue. What issue? Whether or not this is an approproiate time for Congress to give themselves a raise. Good timing on their part. (Not) Just goes to show me how concerned they are about the average taxpayer. They don't want to give us a tax package, but think (right now) they should vote themselves a pay raise.
mybiddness - But, the warring parties will make sure that it is diluted and delayed until it means nothing. I call it politics as usual. Don't forget my mantra... they're all a bunch of crooks and liars. I couldn't agree more.
posted on March 16, 2001 01:21:12 PM
I'm happy to see that even republicans now acknowledge that they are all crooks and liars, but mybiddness, while all the smoke about conventional wisdom may be faith, or seeking out of what one wants to hear, nothing in the market is effected by those factors more than very slightly. The bottom line is the gospel that everyone must accept regardless their peculiar hopes and it looks like this every day:
posted on March 16, 2001 03:40:48 PMKrs I know you're not saying that you think I'm a Republican??? NOT NOW - NOT EVER! If I put a pencil to it I'm sure I've voted for Democrats more often than Republicans. But, being that they Are all a buncha crooks and liars - I don't claim any of them as my own. I just happened to have preferred Bush over Gore in the last election - and I still think he's doing a good job. But, if you want to hear me bash him just bring up his carbon dioxide emissions position he REVERSED this week. What an idiotic, pea-brained, predictably politically motivated load of crap kinda move that was!
Your graph may reflect the bottom line - but I think it's the debate as to how we got to that position that would cause one or both of us to embrace our own choice of "conventional wisdom." I do love that phrase... It's kinda got the same idiotic ring to it as compassionate conservatism... something someone made up one night after too many margaritas. LOL
BTW, you can't claim in your opening post that Bush is purposely making it worse to serve his ill-informed idea and then say in your last post that nothing in the market is effected by those factors more than very slightly. Maybe I should re-read it - but that seems contradictory to me.
If you're not careful you'll start sounding like just another politician.
posted on March 16, 2001 05:18:30 PM
I said (can't you read?) that the 'common wisdom' leanings have little effect, but that the actions and statements of those leaner's supposed leader has a very large effect. Those direct actions override any 'common wisdom' and in truth, negate it in those who derive theirs from da' boss.
This part of the article makes the point that I was trying to make earlier. Of course they present it much better than I did.
Probably 'cause they can read. (yes, I'm a tad bristled by your remark)
The Treasury analysis of income tax returns filed in 2000 showed that at least 17.4 million included income from sole proprieterships, not including farms. According to separate Internal Revenue Service data from 1997, there were 2.5 million corporations and 1.7 million partnerships that individual tax returns.
The National Federation of Independent Business, the leading small-business lobbying group, estimates that 85 percent of small businesses are taxed as individuals -- and 70 percent make at least one capital investment per month.
``There is this constant process of putting more money back into the business,'' said William Dennis, senior research fellow with the NFIB Education Foundation. ``If there's more available, there's more to put back into the business.''
Most of the people that I know in my circle of friends are struggling small business owners that may appear to have money on paper but are struggling as much as the rest of us. If they get the tax break benefits - we all benefit. Even the ones who "appear" to be millionaires don't always have the cash flow. If they get a break then you can bet the farm that it'll be re-invested into their businesses. Whether they're buying more equipment or hiring more employees - how can that do anything but help the economy?
posted on March 16, 2001 09:52:25 PM
keyword = 'small', like drop in bucket, like 40,000,000 little grocery store reinvestments won't effect the dow.
BTW, did you wave today as the nasdaq dropped below 1900?
Is corporation a magical term to you? Hang on to your hat cause I'm a corporation, and that is to better enable me to avoid taxes in main part, within the law. Joe the town drunk can incorporate, too. Big deal.
Look, busybiddy, you're not saying anything new, you keep coming off with standardized non prescription salve for the people. I hope it makes you feel better, and I hope that you can one day find success in whatever you do.
For me though, you've shown yourself to be on a rung that I can't relate to anymore. Talking with you is much like talking to the initiator of other threads that are currently here.
posted on March 16, 2001 11:22:32 PM
Well my belief is George does get it, more so than you or I! It is evident to him, that you don't have to be intellectual, or even harbor a concern for the good of the people, to obtain the highest position in our government. We(The People)are pawns in political game of chess. I can assure you that Mr Bush is not going to suffer as you and I will. His allegiance lies with the constituency that empowered him. Which is not of the same ilk as the working American people. He has been given his position via his political lineage. Which led to a manipulation of the vote in one state, allowing him to garner a victory in lieu of being the least popular candidate. So to the proponents of Mr B give it 4 yrs, and see where your wallet is then!
posted on March 16, 2001 11:54:20 PM
Hi Rawbunzel Correction - He was talking at me - not to me. Big difference.
My mistake Krs I didn't realize that you only wanted to hear from yes men on this topic. Looks like kcpick4u might be one whose willing to agree with you to your hearts desire. None of those pesky opposing thoughts or discussion getting in the way.
posted on March 17, 2001 06:03:18 PM
I've said this before and I'll say it again now: If you can prove to me that the Top one-percent of Americans put 43-percent or more into the tax-base -- then I'll glady advocate that they get a wopping 43-perrcent back!
Truth is, is that the Top one-percent never paid 43% in taxes to begin with!
Quick, someone find me a cold towel for my forehead.
