Did Bush Policies help Your State?

kelticwizard wrote:

BlaiseDaley wrote:
.... the economic havoc of 9-11 hasn't been that great a burden.

Hee hee, Blaise, you beat me to it.

The secret is out. And I've been holding it in ever since checking some numbers.

911 Has Virtually No Large Effect On the American Economy

You read that right.

Don't tell me about the stock market. Yes, there was havoc on the stock market, but any economist will tell you that short term changes in the stock market don't mean much.

The stock market reopened one week after 911.

Is this your work or are you quoting a source?

My opinion Shocked

- I agree that a few fanatics, hijacking four aircraft & crashing into three buildings cannot cripple the U.S. economy. As a nation we are stronger than that. Economically the third quarter of 2001 was going to be weak, the economy had been in a downturn since May 2000. Fed tightens up credit in the last half of 1999 & industrial production peaked in June 2000. I believe the boom days were over before Bush got in office, just most American's will not look at research numbers and draw their own conclusions.
What does 911 cost? You pay for it every day, 911 paradigm us in a new direction in regards to security. Almost all companies now spend more money on security, much more than pre 911. Anytime a company spends cash on one thing others are passed over. There is less money being invested in R&D, payroll increases or increased dividends to stockholders. I work for a tech firm, we have 1000+ employees in six locations. We have spent a large amount of capital on protecting our facilities and internal security of our employees. Increased security is now a cost of doing business, just like lease charges, water, electricity, etc..

0 Replies

thefederalistusa wrote:

Is this your work or are you quoting a source?

I wrote it. But thank you for the kind implication that it was good enough to wonder if it was professionally written. Very Happy

0 Replies

Sorry. Duplicate post.

0 Replies

And what about the graph?

Seriously, you need to cite sources for things like that.

0 Replies

I have given the "source" for this graph when I posted it before on this forum. Of course, I don't hold you responsible for reading every thread here.

The basic graph was made by the Bureau of Labor Statistics graph making engine. Only official Bureau of Labor Statistics can be inserted into the engine.

This is the standard unemployment rate, seasonally adjusted.

I inserted Greenspan's Fed years into the BLS graph making engine, then took the graph to Microsoft Paint for the demarcations between presidents and the title.

Unless somebody has posted the graph on another website, (I posted it on one other forum), you won't find this graph anywhere else.

Of course, if somebody chooses to post this somewhere else, or send it in an Email, or use it any other way, they are free to do so. Very Happy

I gave the explanation the first couple of times I used the graph. I was hopng that I could get away without having to go through it again.

0 Replies

thefederalistusa wrote:

Economically the third quarter of 2001 was going to be weak, the economy had been in a downturn since May 2000. Fed tightens up credit in the last half of 1999 & industrial production peaked in June 2000. I believe the boom days were over before Bush got in office,

Okay, you can cherry-pick numbers all you want, and a case could be made that 2000 was not the best of Clinton's economic years, but here are few things to keep in mind.

For Clinton's last term, he averaged 4.0% GDP growth. For the whole four years. Bush's supporters brag when he reaches 4.0% for a single quarter!

In Clinton's "bad" last year, GDP growth was 2.2%. Just a little over what Bush's father averaged for his whole four years. In Clinton's last quarter, GDP was growing at an annual rate of 2.1%, identical to Bush's father. So if you want to say that is lousy performance, remember that Bush's father had a whole four years that lousy.

Yet Clinton took Bush 41's lousy performance and turned it into golden year after golden year. Bush 43 took Clinton's last year and blamed it for huge unemployment and soaring deficits.

There are more parts to the picture than just GDP growth. I have already illustrated unemployment, and how good Clinton looks compared to bush 41 adn bush 43. I sahall repost that.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/kelticwizard100/BUnemploymentRateGreenspansTenure.gif

Now, I shall post the deficit. See how deficits soar under Bush? See how deficits plummet under Clinton?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/kelticwizard100/GreenspanDeficits.gif

0 Replies

And that doesn't even count the cost of the War in Iraq at all. So you might as well add another 200 billion dollars on there.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

The deficit graph was made by me using official Congressional Budget Office figures. At the time I made the graph, the 2004 deficit was an estimate-it has since been shown to be 100 million dollars less. But still terrible.

In short, Bill Clinton received an economy that had been growing only 2.1% a year for four straight years, had the largest deficit in history, and a huge unemployment rate of 7.3%. He made it much better.

What did Bush 43 do? He received an economy with a GDP growth rate that was down to his father's growth rate-although the preceding years were much higher growth than that. His unemployment was way low. His deficit was nonexistent-it was a suurplus.

And what did Bush 43 do? He made it all worse. Then his supporters all claim it was Clinton's fault!! Twisted Evil

0 Replies

Actually, Cyclo, I do believe the cost of Iraq is included in there. But the point is, even allowing 200 billion for Iraq-and remember Bush told us it was only 80 billion, so I am being kind here-Bush's deficit is still enormous.

Without Iraq: deficit is huge.

With Iraq:deficit is even more huge.

And Bush inherited a surplus.

0 Replies

FYI:

Dear Red States
We're ticked off at the way you've treated California, and we've decided
we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we're taking the other
Blue States with us.
In case you aren't aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington,
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast. We believe this
split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people of the new
country of New California.
To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states. We get
stem cell research and the best beaches. We get Elliot Spitzer. You get Ken
Lay.
We get the Statue of Liberty. You get OpryLand. We get Intel and
Microsoft. You get WorldCom. We get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss.
We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get
Alabama. We get two-thirds of the tax revenue, you get to make the red states
pay their fair share.
Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian
Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms.
Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war, and
we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people
to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids they're apparently willing to
send to their deaths for no purpose, and they don't care if you don't show
pictures of their children's caskets coming home.
We do wish you success in Iraq but we're not willing to spend our resources
in Bush's Quagmire.
With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of the
country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and lettuce, 92
percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of America's quality wines (you
can serve French wines at state dinners), 90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent
of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living
redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools, plus
Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.
With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88
percent of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92
percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90 percent
of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of
all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the
University of Georgia. We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.
Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was
actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless we're
discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say that evolution is only
a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61 percent of you
crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals than we lefties.
By the way, we're taking the good pot, too. You can have that dirt weed
they grow in Mexico.
Sincerely,
Author Unknown in New California.

0 Replies

Back to the original question, thanks to the rebound in the economy (no doubt due to Dubya's tax cuts), most states are enjoying budget surpluses....some rather substantial.

0 Replies

They will waste all the surplus because they have it now. Forget about last years deficits...

0 Replies

States vary in use of surpluses

JOHN McCARTHY
Mon, Jun. 27, 2005

Associated Press

COLUMBUS, Ohio - The last time Ohio had a budget surplus, the state gave $900 million back to taxpayers. In the four years since, the state has gone through economic turmoil that resulted in plans to cut services to libraries and local governments, among other programs.

So when the state found an extra $1.3 billion last month, it decided to restore those programs and put some money away for a rainy day rather than return it to taxpayers.

Other states have found various uses for extra money. Nevada, which has nearly $800 million in surplus money, is returning $300 million of that to taxpayers. Connecticut's $700 million is going for state programs such as education, help for needy families and grants to cities and towns. New York is using the state's $1.1 billion surplus for child, family and health programs under the federal welfare program.

Several other states have added their surpluses to their rainy day funds, many of which were depleted by a nationwide recession in the early 2000s. Ohio's reserve, currently at $180 million, will add another $50 million from this year's budget and $300 million over the next two years.

At least 34 states, including Ohio, are collecting higher-than-forecast sales or income tax receipts, said Arturo Perez, a fiscal and budget analyst for the National Conference of State Legislatures. The 50 states' cumulative budget gap closed from $21.5 billion in 2003 to under $1 billion a year ago, the nonprofit study group said.

The Ohio Office of Budget and Management has increased estimates of money available by $480 million next year and $330 million in 2007, Director Tom Johnson said. Because of unexpectedly strong tax collections, the state also will have about $500 million left over this year.

The Legislature restored money proposed to be cut to cities, counties and libraries - about $180 million over the two years that begin July 1. The state also will ease a planned increase in the electric usage tax.

From 1996 through 2001, Ohio taxpayers got more than $2 billion in tax cuts due to surplus revenues, and the rainy day fund at one time stood at $2 billion. The rainy day fund has been stable for the last two years, but Gov. Bob Taft and lawmakers are reluctant to part with any surplus.

Even one of the Senate's fervent tax hawks, Republican Jim Jordan of Urbana, sees a need to use the money to restore the planned cuts. If more money than expected comes in during the next year, though, Jordan feels the taxpayers should get it.

"If we do have an additional surplus in the future, I say put it in the income tax reduction fund," Jordan said Monday. "At the end of next fiscal year, give it back to the taxpayers of this state. It's their money, give them the money back."

North Dakota expects a surplus of about $200 million at the end of its budget year on June 30, said Pam Sharp, director of that state's budget office. Of that, $65 million will be carried over to the next two-year budget, $87 million will be put in the rainy day fund and another $51 million into a trust fund of oil-tax collections, Sharp said. There will be no money returned directly to taxpayers, but the state is helping in other ways, she said.

"We did increase K-12 education (funding) significantly to take pressure of local property taxes," Sharp said. "We also increased funding for higher education significantly. It's a nice problem to have."

Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a Democrat, is negotiating with majority Republicans in that state's Legislature over what to do with that state's expected surplus of more than $100 million, Rendell spokeswoman Kate Philips said. Rendell would prefer to spend the money to curb sharply rising Medicaid costs.

"Gov. Rendell has committed to not cutting anyone off the Medicaid rolls in Pennsylvania," Philips said. "We're looking at different ways to bring benefits in line to what private insurers give their customers."

http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/state/11998892.htm

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

States vary in use of surpluses

JOHN McCARTHY
Mon, Jun. 27, 2005

Associated Press

COLUMBUS, Ohio - The last time Ohio had a budget surplus, the state gave $900 million back to taxpayers. In the four years since, the state has gone through economic turmoil that resulted in plans to cut services to libraries and local governments, among other programs.

So when the state found an extra $1.3 billion last month, it decided to restore those programs and put some money away for a rainy day rather than return it to taxpayers.

Other states have found various uses for extra money. Nevada, which has nearly $800 million in surplus money, is returning $300 million of that to taxpayers. Connecticut's $700 million is going for state programs such as education, help for needy families and grants to cities and towns. New York is using the state's $1.1 billion surplus for child, family and health programs under the federal welfare program.

Several other states have added their surpluses to their rainy day funds, many of which were depleted by a nationwide recession in the early 2000s. Ohio's reserve, currently at $180 million, will add another $50 million from this year's budget and $300 million over the next two years.

At least 34 states, including Ohio, are collecting higher-than-forecast sales or income tax receipts, said Arturo Perez, a fiscal and budget analyst for the National Conference of State Legislatures. The 50 states' cumulative budget gap closed from $21.5 billion in 2003 to under $1 billion a year ago, the nonprofit study group said.

The Ohio Office of Budget and Management has increased estimates of money available by $480 million next year and $330 million in 2007, Director Tom Johnson said. Because of unexpectedly strong tax collections, the state also will have about $500 million left over this year.

The Legislature restored money proposed to be cut to cities, counties and libraries - about $180 million over the two years that begin July 1. The state also will ease a planned increase in the electric usage tax.

From 1996 through 2001, Ohio taxpayers got more than $2 billion in tax cuts due to surplus revenues, and the rainy day fund at one time stood at $2 billion. The rainy day fund has been stable for the last two years, but Gov. Bob Taft and lawmakers are reluctant to part with any surplus.

Even one of the Senate's fervent tax hawks, Republican Jim Jordan of Urbana, sees a need to use the money to restore the planned cuts. If more money than expected comes in during the next year, though, Jordan feels the taxpayers should get it.

"If we do have an additional surplus in the future, I say put it in the income tax reduction fund," Jordan said Monday. "At the end of next fiscal year, give it back to the taxpayers of this state. It's their money, give them the money back."

North Dakota expects a surplus of about $200 million at the end of its budget year on June 30, said Pam Sharp, director of that state's budget office. Of that, $65 million will be carried over to the next two-year budget, $87 million will be put in the rainy day fund and another $51 million into a trust fund of oil-tax collections, Sharp said. There will be no money returned directly to taxpayers, but the state is helping in other ways, she said.

"We did increase K-12 education (funding) significantly to take pressure of local property taxes," Sharp said. "We also increased funding for higher education significantly. It's a nice problem to have."

Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a Democrat, is negotiating with majority Republicans in that state's Legislature over what to do with that state's expected surplus of more than $100 million, Rendell spokeswoman Kate Philips said. Rendell would prefer to spend the money to curb sharply rising Medicaid costs.

"Gov. Rendell has committed to not cutting anyone off the Medicaid rolls in Pennsylvania," Philips said. "We're looking at different ways to bring benefits in line to what private insurers give their customers."

http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/state/11998892.htm

A vast majority of the money that is surplus should go back to the taxpayers. The govt should never have left over money. If they have a surplus it means they are collecting too much in taxes. They should be pushing for break even. It isn't their money to spend; it belongs to the people who pay taxes.

Here in CO we have TABOR (Taxpayers Bill Of Rights). If the state has a surplus then that money goes back to the people. All states should have TABOR.

0 Replies

Did the article where these surpluses came from; I didn't see any mention of it.

0 Replies

Paragraph 5, "At least 34 states, including Ohio, are collecting higher-than-forecast sales or income tax receipts..."

0 Replies

Higher-than-forecast sales or income tax receipts?

But what if they were expecting enough sales receipts to give them a deficit?

JustWonders wrote:

...most states are enjoying budget surpluses....

There is nothing in that statement which says most states received enough revenue to prevent a deficit. The only thing it says is that the revenue is enough to make any projected deficits they might have smaller.

For that matter, the entire article listed only six states with a surplus: Ohio, Nevada, Connecticut, and New York, North Dakota and Pennsylavania. Before mentioning the last two, the article said there were "several others". If there were still "several" others after Pennsylavania and North Dakota are mentioned is open to question. But nothing in the article says that most states came up with surplusses. Only that they brought in more money than they thought-which considering the previous Bush years, is not saying much.

Remember, the states have had massive shortfalls in the Bush years.

0 Replies

The Associated Press wrote:

The [Ohio} Legislature restored money proposed to be cut to cities, counties and libraries - about $180 million over the two years that begin July 1. The state also will ease a planned increase in the electric usage tax.

Doesn't sound so rosy now, does it? Even for the state budgets which came in balanced, they got there only by drastic cuts to services the states did not want to do, but had to do becase there was not enough money coming in under Bush to cover them.

So the real gist of this article is: The states are doing better, so they can restore some of the services that had to be cut during the earlier disastrous Bush years. Heck, they're even able to help the libraries keep open, instead of cutting their budgets further.

Now, that's something to brag about. Razz

0 Replies

Texas still has a massive shortfall. We've reduced our budgets on critical services significantly.

The whole idea that anyone is doing better right now is a complete joke; except for the rich, of course. They are doing juuuuust fine, thanks very much.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Texas still has a massive shortfall. We've reduced our budgets on critical services significantly.

The whole idea that anyone is doing better right now is a complete joke; except for the rich, of course. They are doing juuuuust fine, thanks very much.

Cycloptichorn

Multibillion-Dollar Tax Windfall Allowing States to Slash Taxes, Improve Services

TEXAS Comptroller estimates $400 million budget surplus

I realize that those who oppose the current administration won't see any improvement in the economy as "good news". Facts are facts, though, read 'em and weep.

Cyclops - Texas doesn't have a State Income Tax, right? Just imagine the surplus if they did Smile

And then there's THIS. <Per Cyclops, another "complete joke" no doubt>

Laughing

0 Replies

Did Bush Policies help Your State?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know