WHO WILL WIN IN NOVEMBER?

Fox, you should try to come up with someone better than Kudlow, who has no credibility. He has always been a shill for the Republicans. He predicted that Bush's tax cuts would produce large surpluses, which is silly on its face. He touts the great economy by pointing to the stock market, which is doing just okay. It is still lower than when Clinton left office.

The great economy is not that great, with job growth almost nonexistent. Virtually all the new jobs are in health care, which is not indicative of added wealth in the country. Corporations are doing well by effectively cutting wages and employee benefits. New college graduates are facing bleak prospects.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Fox, you should try to come up with someone better than Kudlow, who has no credibility. He has always been a shill for the Republicans. He predicted that Bush's tax cuts would produce large surpluses, which is silly on its face. He touts the great economy by pointing to the stock market, which is doing just okay. It is still lower than when Clinton left office.

The great economy is not that great, with job growth almost nonexistent. Virtually all the new jobs are in health care, which is not indicative of added wealth in the country. Corporations are doing well by effectively cutting wages and employee benefits. New college graduates are facing bleak prospects.

Well, the figures I've seen on treasury revenues back up Kudlow 100%. What source do you have to dispute them?

0 Replies

Quote:

President George W. Bush's tax cuts have done an amazing job of reigniting the U.S. economy. The 2003 tax cuts rallied the stock market, generated 6.5 million new jobs and produced soaring revenues that have, in turn, slashed the deficit.

I suppose it all depends on the meaning of "amazing"

The Dow is up at only a rate of 11% per year in that time frame.
The Nasdaq is up 14%
The S&P is up 13%
Hardly amazing numbers unless you consider average gains to be amazing.

Quote:

http://www.jobwatch.org/

So the job gains have been sluggish and far below normal. Amazing is the word I might use if I was talking about how bad the gains were compared to normal.

I haven't had time to break out the treasury figures yet but I bet they will be just about as "amazing" once you factor in economic and population growth.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Quote:
President George W. Bush's tax cuts have done an amazing job of reigniting the U.S. economy. The 2003 tax cuts rallied the stock market, generated 6.5 million new jobs and produced soaring revenues that have, in turn, slashed the deficit.
I suppose it all depends on the meaning of "amazing"

The Dow is up at only a rate of 11% per year in that time frame.
The Nasdaq is up 14%
The S&P is up 13%
Hardly amazing numbers unless you consider average gains to be amazing.

Quote:
http://www.jobwatch.org/

So the job gains have been sluggish and far below normal. Amazing is the word I might use if I was talking about how bad the gains were compared to normal.

I haven't had time to break out the treasury figures yet but I bet they will be just about as "amazing" once you factor in economic and population growth.

The DOW, NASDAQ, S&P etc. cannot go up at 'amazing rates' indefinitely and a steady sustained growth is what you shoot for. A steady sustained growth indicates growth in the businesses and industry reflected in the market. Any investor in it for the long term is ecstatically happy with 11 to 15% returns on his money.

Unemployment is holding at about 4.6% give or take .1 or .2% fluctuations from week to week which is essentially full employment. It is extremely difficult to produce record job growth when almost all people who really want jobs have jobs.

The fact is, you lefties and the leftish mainstream media will not give Bush policies credit for a very good economic environment, but that does not change the fact that the economy is quite good and a good deal of the credit for that is in those tax breaks for the American wage earners, investors, and entrepeneurs. Those very tax breaks that you lefties hate so much and which Kudlow is pretty darn sure will be scuttled if the Democrats get the power.

I want representatives who will legislate opportunities for people to succeed and better themselves and have a chance to get rich. I don't wnat representatives who punish people who do.

0 Replies

Here is a debate a couple of years ago between Krugman and Kudlow. Fox, you will interpret it wrong, but the truth is that Kudlow was demolished.

http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/CNBCKudlowCramer080204.html

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Here is a debate a couple of years ago between Krugman and Kudlow. Fox, you will interpret it wrong, but the truth is that Kudlow was demolished.

http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/CNBCKudlowCramer080204.html

This isn't a couple of years ago. This is now. And Krugman, with all his pessimism and negativity and skewed interpretations of reality couldn't debate his way out of a paper bag against an economist with a realistic view of the world.

0 Replies

Kudlow is a fool.

Quote:

The fact is, you lefties and the leftish mainstream media will not give Bush policies credit for a very good economic environment

Repeat after me, kids.

Any environment in which the National Debt goes up by HALF in just 6 years is NOT a good economic environment![/color]

All the righties avoid talking about the debt, always, because it is unsupportable.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Show me any economy in any administration who has been at war that the National Debt has gone down.

0 Replies

There is none. The details don't matter. All that matters is that the debt is being racked up in massive fashion. Therefore, the economy is not doing well. It isn't a difficult equation.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

As mentioned in the debate, about 65% of the deficits were the result of the tax cuts for the wealthy.

0 Replies

Not to mention that we are talking about a war of choice, with concerns to Iraq. We didn't have to go to war. Therefore, the spending on the Iraq war can be considered to be decidedly discretionary.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

As mentioned in the debate, about 65% of the deficits were the result of the tax cuts for the wealthy.

When the overwhelming evidence, supported by EVERY credible economist writing on it, is that national revenues are at an all time HIGH and this is due in a large part to those very real tax reductions, it's really difficult for you to support your statement with any credible evidence, Advocate.

0 Replies

I should mention that government spending is being supported with borrowed money. What would happen if the our foreign lenders decided to cash in the govt issued paper they hold. If the democrats are the tax and spend party what than are the republicans"the borrow and spend party.
Our children and grandchildren will be paying down the debt run up by republican economic policy.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Advocate wrote:
As mentioned in the debate, about 65% of the deficits were the result of the tax cuts for the wealthy.

When the overwhelming evidence, supported by EVERY credible economist writing on it, is that national revenues are at an all time HIGH and this is due in a large part to those very real tax reductions, it's really difficult for you to support your statement with any credible evidence, Advocate.

The premise of your sentence may define your idea of a credible economist. It doesn't describe what credible economists are writing -- let alone every credible economist.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Advocate wrote:
As mentioned in the debate, about 65% of the deficits were the result of the tax cuts for the wealthy.

When the overwhelming evidence, supported by EVERY credible economist writing on it, is that national revenues are at an all time HIGH and this is due in a large part to those very real tax reductions, it's really difficult for you to support your statement with any credible evidence, Advocate.

The premise of your sentence may define your idea of a credible economist. It doesn't describe what credible economists are writing -- let alone every credible economist.

Okay. You're right. Let's amend my more emphatic statement to read EVERY economist that I consider to be credible. Better?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Okay. You're right. Let's amend my more emphatic statement to read EVERY economist that I consider to be credible. Better?

Perfect.

0 Replies

LIKE IT OR NOT, WITHIN THE RANGE OF 15% TO 70% TAX RATES:

(1) reducing taxes increases income
(2) increasing income, increases private spending and private investment
(3) increasing private spending and private investment , increases in tax revenues
(4) increases in tax revenues, REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE DEFICIT for a given rate of federal expenditure.

(1) increasing taxes decreases income
(2) decreasing income, decreases private spending and private investment
(3) decreasing private spending and private investment , decreases tax revenues
(4) decreases in tax revenues, INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE DEFICIT for a given rate of federal expenditure.

TO REDUCE THE FEDERAL DEBT, WE MUST NOT ONLY REDUCE THE TAX RATE, WE MUST ALSO HOLD CONSTANT OR REDUCE FEDERAL SPENDING.

0 Replies

Advocate, I nor anybody else have ever said that the tax cuts alone accounted for the good economy. But I and those economists that I consider to be credible give the tax cuts a lot of well deserved credit for it.

Read Ican's post. He's right on the money.

Those who look for ugliness, blackness, gloom, and doom can always find somebody who will back them up on that either out of partisan motives or just because they are those kinds of people.

I prefer to see the good, the positive, and the real opportunities that far outweigh the negatives. I think focusing on the good and finding ways to improve on that is the better way to go. That's why I don't like Krugman's stuff because he seems incapable of being able to do that.

0 Replies

Foxfyre
Did you get your rose colored glasses from the same source as Bush? They appear to be effective since they cut out the ugly truth. How can tax cuts be justified when the government needs to borrow,borrow and borrow to meet financial obligations. Particularly in time of war?

0 Replies

WHO WILL WIN IN NOVEMBER?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know