WHO WILL WIN IN NOVEMBER?

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.

How can Foxfyre be so optimistic. Our yearly deficits are at all time highs.

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.

Fox, you certainly don't look for the good and the positive relative to Clinton's reign. You are even willing to lie (no, mislead) regarding his insistence on pay as you go and welfare reform. These things were hardly forced upon him.

He was a great president, with many accomplishments in the face of years of Republican persecution. Luckily, the women in life bucked him up.

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.

au1929 wrote:

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.

And since the Constitution gives the Congress the power and authority to borrow money,do we amend the constitution?

You can't compare apples to apples unless you give the previous administration a developing recession deeply exacerbated by 9/11 and a war with Iraq. Clinton fought tooth and nail against balancing the budget and welfare reform forced on him by the GOP majority in Congress and both items contributed to a good economy (and a LOT of people going to work) during those years. Those punative tax rates, however, were beginning to take their toll when Bush took office. Also the economy was coming out of a recession and unemployment was already on its way down when Clinton's tax increase took effect.

But lets start a different thread if you really want to discuss pros and cons of economics in general. I am content to recognize that the current economy is very good and I don't want to screw around with the tax rates that could affect that in a major way.

Even with 9/11 that set everything on its ear for many months, a deep recession, and a Congress that spends way too much money, things look good.

Madison32 wrote:

How can Foxfyre be so optimistic. Our yearly deficits are at all time highs.

I can be optimistic because the deficits are coming down; dropping like a stone even. And I have every reason to believe that will continue if Congress doesn't raise a lot of taxes and thus slow all that lovely money flowing into the treasury.

The deficit, however, indicates that Congress is spending more than it takes in. Treasury revenues are at an all time high so that just means that Congress is spending waaaaaaay more than it takes in. Because revenues are not down, it has nothing to do with the health of th economy.

From 1996 to 1998 the deficit went down 176 million. Did it drop like a stone then too under Clinton? Shouldn't we go back to a tax policy that creates large deficit reduction and actually created a surplus?

Absolutely. and we need to get rid of some of the big spenders---Lieberman, even though he is a Democrat. must go!

Madison32 wrote:

Absolutely. and we need to get rid of some of the big spenders---Lieberman, even though he is a Democrat. must go!

Lieberman is no longer a Democrat. The Democrat in the CT race is Ned Lamont.

Eighteen years ago.... at least!