Our Great Economy, Thank You President Bush

[Pudlugger]

Bush's Real Record On The Economy

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, May 04, 2007 4:20 PM PT

The Presidency: Years from now, pundits and academics will surely wonder why President Bush's greatest achievement — his stewardship of the economy — got so little notice during his time in office. Yet that's how it is.

Bizarrely, polls show that many people think the economy has fallen into a recession. Or that we never left the slump that began in March 2001, a bare month and a half after Bush entered office, and that ended in November of the same year.

Last summer, a national poll taken by American Research Group showed 38% of Americans thought the economy was in a recession. By last month that had fallen to 28%, but it's still a big share. Of course, we weren't in a recession. Nor is it the case, as also has been asserted, that "things got worse" under Bush.

What factually is true is Bush faced the greatest economic challenge of any incoming president since President Reagan. Like Reagan, Bush met the challenge — something for which the media and his foes refuse to give him credit.

It's hard to overemphasize how nasty things were. But the media were too busy penning loving tributes to President Clinton to note that the economy was falling apart as he left office. Here are the facts about what Bush faced:

• The economy was already in recession. It actually began shrinking the summer before Bush entered office — by 0.5% in the third quarter of 2000.

• The stock market, as measured by the popular Nasdaq, had already plunged 46% from its peak in 2000 — the biggest drop since 1929, slicing nearly $8 trillion from Americans' wealth.

• Not until Jan. 3, 2001, a mere three weeks before Bush took office, did the Federal Reserve cut interest rates — a first step in reversing six rate hikes over the prior two years. Since there's about a one-year lag between Fed rate moves and the economy, the bank's tardy response to the slowdown pretty much doomed Bush's first year.

View larger image

Bush was also hamstrung early on by Democrat claims that his victory in the disputed 2000 election was somehow "illegitimate."

As 2001 wore on, things got worse. Democrats screeched about Bush's proposed tax cuts. Later they blamed him for "soaring" deficits — even though, with the economy's slowdown, deficits were entirely predictable and, indeed, inevitable. But the much-feared deficits have now shrunk to 1.6% of GDP, below the long-term average of 2.6%. Soon we may have surpluses.

For real pain, however, look at the stock market's plunge. As the chart above shows, the late-1990s Nasdaq collapse was worse even than that suffered by the Dow industrials in the 1929 crash.

The similarity is more than just coincidental — it's spooky.

On the heels of that devastating decline, of course, came 9/11 — a national psychological trauma that created mass fear and even panic. We tend to forget how people just stayed home, stopped shopping and traveling.

An IMF study reckoned that 9/11 cost the U.S. economy about $75 billion in lost GDP — not counting property losses of well over $100 billion. The U.S. also incurred future yearly costs of roughly 0.75% of GDP to pay for greater security, another big hit.

No question: The year 2001 marked a major break for the economy, with one of the largest hits ever to the wealth of Americans.

It could have been an epic disaster. But it wasn't. Bush did exactly the right thing — though he's still criticized for it today. To get the economy moving again, he pushed through tax cuts in 2001, 2002 and 2003.

Some 113 million people got an average tax cut of $2,216. Families with children got even more — $2,864 on average.

Since the last round of cuts in 2003, we've had the quietest, and most significant, boom in wealth, income and profits in our history. This explains why the economy, to the surpise of economists and the chagrin of liberal pundits, keeps humming. We've gone over the numbers before, but they bear repeating. Since 2002:

• Real gross domestic product has soared $1.64 trillion, or 16.5%, during a five-year stretch that has yet to see a downturn and that has witnessed average annual growth of 3%.

• Disposable personal income — what's left after taxes — has jumped $2.16 trillion, or 29%, to $9.68 trillion.

• Productivity, the fuel for future standards of living, has improved 14.3%.

• Overall employee compensation has expanded 4% a year.

• Net wealth, the amount people would have after paying off their debts, has swelled $15.2 trillion, or 38%, to $55.6 trillion. That gain in just five years is more than the total wealth amassed in the first 210 years of America's existence — an unprecedented surge.

• About 69% of Americans now own their homes, an all-time high.

• The jobless rate, now at 4.4%, remains below its 40-year average. Since August 2003, 7.8 million new jobs have been created.

• Tax receipts have surged 43%, or $757.6 billion, again thanks to economic growth.

Today, some signs point to slowing. All the more reason to keep Bush's tax cuts, the engine of our prosperity. But the new Democrat-led Congress has threatened not just to roll back Bush's cuts, but to impose new taxes that would sink the economy.

A recent study by economists Tracy Foertsch and Ralph Rector for the Heritage Foundation found that letting Bush's tax cuts lapse in 2010, as they are scheduled to do, would cost the U.S. $75 billion in GDP each year, kill 709,000 jobs and slice $200 billion from real personal income. It'd be a crime to let that happen.

George W. Bush's economic miracle is both real and sustainable. Too bad he won't get credit for it until the current generation of biased journalists and academics has retired.

Email To Friend | Print | View All Editorials | Search

Back To Top

[shankbear]

Exactly.

[Phil C]

Also let's look at President Clinton.

The economy was in good shape when he left office and we were in the black with a favorable budget balance and the budget was balancing out favorable. And we didn't have to have a war to have it. Of course people said it was because of the Republican Congress but looked what happened when they had both control of Congress and the Presidency.

[Phil C]

Oh and the Fat Cats had the price of gasoline at a more reasoable price back then too. :)

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by Phil C
Also let's look at President Clinton.

The economy was in good shape when he left office and we were in the black with a favorable budget balance and the budget was balancing out favorable. And we didn't have to have a war to have it. Of course people said it was because of the Republican Congress but looked what happened when they had both control of Congress and the Presidency.

The Clinton economy was buoyed by the huge Dot.com bubble which burst beginning in March 2000 when the Clinton Justice Department went after Microsoft and continued well into 2002. Then you had a little event called 9/11 which not only incinerated 3000 innocent Americans but severely damaged a huge segment of the economy (Travel, Airlines, Hotels insurance etc.) It was nothing short of a miracle the way President Bush revived our economy through enlightened market friendly tax policy, managed to take the War on Terror to Al Qaeda's home front in Afganistan and freeing 50 million people from the Talaban and Saddam Hussein. Then along comes Katrina, the worst natural disaster in American history. Never mind the problems with FEMA, the Bush Administration deserves credit for maintaining solid economic growth during the reconstruction efforts in NO, Mississippi and Texas. The economy is rock solid despite all this adversity and a 5 year Iraqi War. Yet from the media all you get is the negatives and leftist spin.

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by Phil C
Oh and the Fat Cats had the price of gasoline at a more reasoable price back then too. :)

The price of gasoline is not the fault of the President or of "fat cats". It is due to supply and demand. We have not openned a new refinery in this country in 20 years, Congress has repeatedly denied new oil exploration on the coasts and in ANWAR, environmentalists have fought tooth and nail virtually every new energy project ( including offshore Wind within sight of Ted Kennedy's compound in Mass LOL) and have stopped nuclear energy in this country despite its success in Europe and new safety technology. Then you have the various state and federal mandates on different blends further diminishing refining capacity. Also, let's not forget Katrina and Rita which severly crippled refining capacity. Then you also have those nutcases Hugo Chavez and Armadingdong messing with world oil supplies. So yes we have gas at $3/gallon, about 2 bucks per gallon less than what European's have been paying for the past twenty years.

[carter08]

When the consumers pay more for gas, the gas companies earn more money, and stocks climb higher, making it seem as if the economy is improved

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by carter08
When the consumers pay more for gas, the gas companies earn more money, and stocks climb higher, making it seem as if the economy is improved

:confused:

if consumers are paying more for one thing, gas, then they're spending less on other things, so it'd make the overall view of the stock market go down, correct?

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by carter08
When the consumers pay more for gas, the gas companies earn more money, and stocks climb higher, making it seem as if the economy is improved

That is true but remember that energy is only one sector of the economy. Actually, the wealth effect of rising equity values in this sector benefits a wide swath of our population when you realize who owns these stocks...401ks, elderly retirees, widows and just about everyone with a mutual fund account. So these folks see their bottom line improve and it does reflect positively on their perceptions of the economy. On the otherhand, energy underlies so much of the rest of the economy (we really are an energy based society) that higher costs lead to negative forces on the economy such as inflation and lower growth. You are probably too young to remember the Carter years (no pun intended LOL) when we had 12% inflation, 20% interest rates on mortgages, long lines at gas stations and odd even days to buy gasoline. Malaise was what it was called, or stagflation. We are really well off today compared to back then.

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
:confused:

if consumers are paying more for one thing, gas, then they're spending less on other things, so it'd make the overall view of the stock market go down, correct?

The stock market as a whole probably is negatively impacted by high energy costs although energy stocks might benefit. Those folks heavily invested in Exxon probably are pretty happy but those with airline stocks are hurting.

[Gp83]

Originally posted by Phil C
Oh and the Fat Cats had the price of gasoline at a more reasoable price back then too. :)
I never knew you we're a liberal:doh:

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

How is the economy better when the price of living has increased? The price of common goods has gone through the roof, in some instances the cost increasing to twice of what it was when Clinton was in office. Of course, this propaganda should be expected from someone who claimed that Reagan was great for the American economy. I guess that whoever wrote these and the people who are clapping for this article are forgetting that we're still paying for the debt we accumulated while Reagan was still in office. We're running our country on money that is backed by smoke and mirrors, look around, we're in debt, moreso than we have accumulated in over a decade. I haven't heard any plausible reason why the price of bread, eggs, and dairy products have increased, along with food items that are associated with them, but I suppose that's the way the market works, or is it? Many fail to realize that we are under a government that runs under supply-side economics, which are, just as liberals and all economic experts point out, tax cuts for the wealthy in hopes that the benefits trickle down to the American consumers. The same people that are patting Bush on the back for these incentives are the same people who are pushing to do away with welfare benefits on a large scale, Social Security, and are against labor unions and the minimum wage. I just don't understand how people who aren't in the extreme elite part of American society can support these fundamentals. The worth of the common man has done nothing but gone down as of late, and I'm disgusted by it and the flaunting of these numbers that just support one fact, the rich are getting richer. Jobs for the common man are going overseas for the benefit of who? The rich corporate men and women who send them overseas to Bangladesh because they're cheaper, and then continue by importing them over for more profit. I'm sorry to say that your numbers and the assertions pushed through in this article are incorrect, flawed, and biased, and the sad thing is that people believe them as factual and that is the reason leaders like George W. Bush get elected. In no way are you going to convince me or anyone with a brain and the ability to use reason and logic that the economy today is stronger, as strong, or anywhere remotely close to being as strong as the economy when Clinton was in office, because that notion is a fallacy. Oh, and that recession that you were talking about when Clinton was leaving office, that is the natural flow of the economy, and the recession was inevitable, but the extent and the severity of it can be placed completely on the shoulders of the leaders who were in office during the time it was taking place.

[Keith7]

unemployment rate is higher now then it ever was with clinton..

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by Keith7
unemployment rate is higher now then it ever was with clinton..

No it isn't. It was about 5.2% during the 90's and it is 4.4% now.

As for BBDE, well what can you say about such an incredibly misinformed rant? Maybe an economics course or two would help but I don't know. Wealth is created, you can't just give it to people or tax your way into it, it has to be earned. To dismiss the prosperity we have now so offhandedly shows no understanding of how economies work, or reality for that matter. Inflation is historically low now and prices are not "going through the roof". CPI has been below 4% during this administration which is low historically while real wages are up among the working class over the levels in 2000. Look it up if you don't believe me BBDE. Tax cuts work and they result in more investment, jobs and consumer spending. Tax cuts actually increase government revenues and we have just recorded the greatest increase in tax revenue ever this past year and that is on top of yearly increases of unprecedented growth in revenues since 2000. Tax cuts during JFK's administration and the Reagan administration did the same thing, increasing revenue. The budget deficit we have is the result of unrestrained spending. Reagan had a democratic Congress and he could not restrain spending along with the tax cuts. The Pubbies recently acted like drunken sailors too so there is blame to go around. However, if you want to see what happens when you increase taxes, over-regulate business, and force unions on industry look to Michigan. While the rest of the country enjoys 4.8% unemployment they have 7%. Businesses are leaving the state along with hard working folks to escape high taxes. The State budget is in the red and Gov. Granholm wants to raise taxes more. Toyota has passed GM as the worlds leading automaker, Ford is near bankrupcy and Toyota built their truck plant in Texas bringing great jobs and big bucks to San Antonio. I could write a book on how wrong BBDE is about this but why bother.

[Keith7]

Originally posted by Pudlugger
No it isn't. It was about 5.2% during the 90's and it is 4.8% now.



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/Us_unemployment_rates_1950_2005.png/800px-Us_unemployment_rates_1950_2005.png

The average might have been high, but that was partly because of the high unemployment rate Clinton inherited from the lat president (who was that again?).. Clinton presided over the longest period of peace-time economic expansion in American history, which included a balanced budget and a federal surplus.. Unemployment rates went down every year he was in office, and continued to drop until somebody else took office in 2000..

[pirate4state]

You guys have nothing better to do on a Sunday? :rolleyes: *YAWN* Knock yourselves out!!

[Keith7]

Originally posted by pirate4state
You guys have nothing better to do on a Sunday? :rolleyes: *YAWN* Knock yourselves out!!

I'd rather be studying but I can't let a thread like this get by with out a reply..

[pirate4state]

Originally posted by Keith7
I'd rather be studying but I can't let a thread like this get by with out a reply..

LOL ~~~ well have fun, but you really should get back to studying.

Have fun kiddos & try not to be too mean to each other!

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by Keith7
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/Us_unemployment_rates_1950_2005.png/800px-Us_unemployment_rates_1950_2005.png

The average might have been high, but that was partly because of the high unemployment rate Clinton inherited from the lat president (who was that again?).. Clinton presided over the longest period of peace-time economic expansion in American history, which included a balanced budget and a federal surplus.. Unemployment rates went down every year he was in office, and continued to drop until somebody else took office in 2000..

Nice graphic Keith. Now let's overlay tax policy on it. 1982-1988 following Reagan tax cuts we see a steady drop in unemployment. 1990 George HW Bush broke his read my lips vow and caved in to Dan Rostenkosky and raised taxes substantially resulting in that high unemployment and recession you mentioned at the start of Clinton's term. The Republican Congress cut spending and the dot.com boom along with higher marginal rates brought in more revenue, but what was the cause of that? More taxes or more business expansion? Or was it more capital gains revenue from the expanding stock market bubble. Remember people had to pay taxes on unrealized capital gains on stocks even though they were not sold, so when the stocks were high they paid big taxes only to lose most of this equity with the crash of the tech bubble (NASDAQ went from 5000 to under 2000). Many people owed the IRS hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes even though their stocks in these start up and IPOs had become worthless and they were ruined. So when you compare the economy of the 90's to what we have now keep this in mind. Unemployment is down, the economy is growing nicely with relatively little inflation and revenues are up. If spending could be controlled than you could achieve real surpluses and a truly balanced budget, not the kind of anomalous event that occured during the run up and over inflation of the stock market which disappeared almost overnight. Again, this graphic supports the position that tax cuts reduce unemployment and stimulate the economy resulting in overall increases in revenue.

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by pirate4state
You guys have nothing better to do on a Sunday? :rolleyes: *YAWN* Knock yourselves out!!

I think economics are fun! Football season is too distant and a little good natured discussion and controversy keeps us sharp.:)

besides I've got a bad cold and am bored.:(

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by pirate4state
You guys have nothing better to do on a Sunday? :rolleyes: *YAWN* Knock yourselves out!!

is rolling your eyes at us the only thing you've to do on Sunday?

:rolleyes:

must be something more productive for you to do :D

[eagles_victory]

its basic government to know that the economy is going to go up and down. The economy actually has little to do with the president Bush is just reeping the benefits of a good economic swing. If our economy is so good why is everything costing me more?

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by eagles_victory
its basic government to know that the economy is going to go up and down. The economy actually has little to do with the president Bush is just reeping the benefits of a good economic swing. If our economy is so good why is everything costing me more?

you mean everything or just gas?

gas is just way up there, just how it is, but people are also making more...

the temp service at my plant usually contracts their people out starting at 7 an hour... went from 7 to 9 with no stop in between...

[Gobbla2001]

It's actually amazing that the division of the plant I work in has not had to do any layoffs etc...over the past few years because of gas prices going up etc... oil is used to make our product and we had to increase our prices per square inch... we feared losing customers but we're actually gaining more business and have experienced the most growth in the company and are expanding... the resin we use to make the finished product is made by our mother company then shipped to us... the plant that makes it exploded last year and we were pretty sure layoffs would follow because we were spending big bucks to purchase the resin from the outside while the plant was being rebuilt... we actually had our largest profit during that time and it continues to rise... and we're allowing the contract/temp service to up their employees income which we pay them for...

atleast our side of the economy is doing well...

[big daddy russ]

One way or the other, the economy's great right now. We took some lumps at the beginning of the Bush administration, but everything's evened out now.

Whether or not the price of goods has gone up, so has the average household income. 1999 was the biggest economic year under the Clinton administration. Unemployment was extremely low and the average household income (adjusted to the value of a dollar in 2003) was $46,236. Two years prior, the average household income was $43,648.

In 2005, it was $46,326, so the buying power of your average American family is about the same as it was during Clinton's heyday (it actually probably figures out to between $45K and $46K converting it into 2003 dollars).

I can still get a gallon of milk at HEB for $2.79. It was $2.39 ten years ago. If anything, we should be griping about the increase in price of cars, especially American cars. When I was a senior in HS ('97-'98), my parents and I were looking at new trucks. The one that I really wanted was a four-wheel drive single cab Chevy. It wasn't a luxury truck, but it had a lot of the bells and whistles. It had a 305 V8, automatic transmission, sliding rear windows, cloth seats, tilt and cruise, etc. It stickered for right around $19,100.

That same truck nowadays stickers for close to $30K. I looked at one about two years ago and couldn't believe how much they had gone up. It's amazing how quickly the price of American cars were catching up to European cars.

One way or the other, we're doing alright right now. The economy's in good shape, unemployment's relatively low, and people are making a decent living. Let's leave it at that.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
One way or the other, the economy's great right now. We took some lumps at the beginning of the Bush administration, but everything's evened out now.

Whether or not the price of goods has gone up, so has the average household income. 1999 was the biggest economic year under the Clinton administration. Unemployment was extremely low and the average household income (adjusted to the value of a dollar in 2003) was $46,236. Two years prior, the average household income was $43,648.

In 2005, it was $46,326, so the buying power of your average American family is about the same as it was during Clinton's heyday (it actually probably figures out to between $45K and $46K converting it into 2003 dollars).

I can still get a gallon of milk at HEB for $2.79. It was $2.39 ten years ago. If anything, we should be griping about the increase in price of cars, especially American cars. When I was a senior in HS ('97-'98), my parents and I were looking at new trucks. The one that I really wanted was a four-wheel drive single cab Chevy. It wasn't a luxury truck, but it had a lot of the bells and whistles. It had a 305 V8, automatic transmission, sliding rear windows, cloth seats, tilt and cruise, etc. It stickered for right around $19,100.

That same truck nowadays stickers for close to $30K. I looked at one about two years ago and couldn't believe how much they had gone up. It's amazing how quickly the price of American cars were catching up to European cars.

One way or the other, we're doing alright right now. The economy's in good shape, unemployment's relatively low, and people are making a decent living. Let's leave it at that. international trade is bursting laredo at the seems. Its amazing the salary of the professors here at tamiu that specialize in that field(international trade). we have visitors from all over the southern hemisphere, europe, middle east and south asia. my pops works for Southern Pacific Railroad(these guys have it good), and the amount of trade has grown exponentially. this is one aspect of the economy, but its one that is reaping benefits in this area. you guys should see the economic boom down here.

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by Pudlugger
Nice graphic Keith. Now let's overlay tax policy on it. 1982-1988 following Reagan tax cuts we see a steady drop in unemployment. 1990 George HW Bush broke his read my lips vow and caved in to Dan Rostenkosky and raised taxes substantially resulting in that high unemployment and recession you mentioned at the start of Clinton's term. The Republican Congress cut spending and the dot.com boom along with higher marginal rates brought in more revenue, but what was the cause of that? More taxes or more business expansion? Or was it more capital gains revenue from the expanding stock market bubble. Remember people had to pay taxes on unrealized capital gains on stocks even though they were not sold, so when the stocks were high they paid big taxes only to lose most of this equity with the crash of the tech bubble (NASDAQ went from 5000 to under 2000). Many people owed the IRS hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes even though their stocks in these start up and IPOs had become worthless and they were ruined. So when you compare the economy of the 90's to what we have now keep this in mind. Unemployment is down, the economy is growing nicely with relatively little inflation and revenues are up. If spending could be controlled than you could achieve real surpluses and a truly balanced budget, not the kind of anomalous event that occured during the run up and over inflation of the stock market which disappeared almost overnight. Again, this graphic supports the position that tax cuts reduce unemployment and stimulate the economy resulting in overall increases in revenue.

Great points:clap:

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

*Yawn*

[JR2004]

Originally posted by Pudlugger
Nice graphic Keith. Now let's overlay tax policy on it. 1982-1988 following Reagan tax cuts we see a steady drop in unemployment. 1990 George HW Bush broke his read my lips vow and caved in to Dan Rostenkosky and raised taxes substantially resulting in that high unemployment and recession you mentioned at the start of Clinton's term. The Republican Congress cut spending and the dot.com boom along with higher marginal rates brought in more revenue, but what was the cause of that? More taxes or more business expansion? Or was it more capital gains revenue from the expanding stock market bubble. Remember people had to pay taxes on unrealized capital gains on stocks even though they were not sold, so when the stocks were high they paid big taxes only to lose most of this equity with the crash of the tech bubble (NASDAQ went from 5000 to under 2000). Many people owed the IRS hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes even though their stocks in these start up and IPOs had become worthless and they were ruined. So when you compare the economy of the 90's to what we have now keep this in mind. Unemployment is down, the economy is growing nicely with relatively little inflation and revenues are up. If spending could be controlled than you could achieve real surpluses and a truly balanced budget, not the kind of anomalous event that occured during the run up and over inflation of the stock market which disappeared almost overnight. Again, this graphic supports the position that tax cuts reduce unemployment and stimulate the economy resulting in overall increases in revenue.

You've made too much sense Pudlugger! Some of the know-it-alls (Actually know-nothings would probably be a better term) around here just aren't able to grasp any kind of understanding about this.

[Keith7]

The economy is ok now at best, but that doesn't make up for other mistakes made by the administration

[sinton66]

Originally posted by Keith7
The economy is ok now at best, but that doesn't make up for other mistakes made by the administration

My Gawd! Keith, did you just admit you are wrong about the economy being terrible????

[bandera7]

could you just pin point the mistakes you are talking about keith?

[Keith7]

Originally posted by bandera7
could you just pin point the mistakes you are talking about keith?

no then this thread will be condemed too political and get locked down..

[Old Tiger]

Originally posted by Keith7
no then this thread will be condemed too political and get locked down.. I would hate for that to happen....:rolleyes: I'm suprised it already hasn't been you know.

[Keith7]

Originally posted by sinton66
My Gawd! Keith, did you just admit you are wrong about the economy being terrible????

ok at best isn't something to be proud of.. don't forget Clinton presided over the longest period of peace-time economic expansion in American history, when you take over after a period like that its hard for the economy to fall that quickly

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Keith7
ok at best isn't something to be proud of.. don't forget Clinton presided over the longest period of peace-time economic expansion in American history, when you take over after a period like that its hard for the economy to fall that quickly


Well seeing as the economy started to decline while he was STILL in office, he is to blame for it as well

[Keith7]

Originally posted by Tiger WR
I would hate for that to happen....:rolleyes: I'm suprised it already hasn't been you know.

yes I know.. If the original post was about Bush mishandling the Iraqi war it would have been closed before anyone could comment

[sinton66]

Originally posted by Keith7
ok at best isn't something to be proud of.. don't forget Clinton presided over the longest period of peace-time economic expansion in American history, when you take over after a period like that its hard for the economy to fall that quickly

Why is it not something to be proud of? Have you seen the Dow Jones or the Nasdaq? I know, you're just gonna say those are fat cats getting richer. Wonder whatever happened to the silly notion that ANYBODY can buy stocks and bonds? If it's ONLY fat cats that are getting richer, who is to blame for that? If more common folk would invest in the stock market, our economy would go through the roof. Unfortunately, the "little" people let things like the Enron mess turn them away from the American market.

[Gobbla2001]

I think what Keith is trying to say is that Bush has made mistakes, he is Anti-Bush, so even if Bush does something really great he won't like it because he's not supposed to like Bush...

[Phil C]

Man I hate to see all this arguing! :) :(

[Keith7]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
I think what Keith is trying to say is that Bush has made mistakes, he is Anti-Bush, so even if Bush does something really great he won't like it because he's not supposed to like Bush...

if he does something great then good I would give him credit for it.. but he hasnt done anything great.. The economy is average now at best, in football terms its like a 8-8 record, its enough to give fans hope, but you know we could do so much more.. Bush has challenged democracy in this country and has sacrificed and lost many lives in his own political pursuits.. Im not the only one who feels this way either, he has a terrible approval rating and his administrations handling of the war is a big reason why democrats won majority in the last congressional elections.. Call me a bush hater if you dont want to face the facts but there are a thousand things a person can bring up that was and has been bad with his terms in office and I think the rest of america has finally started to realize that.. why do you think conservatives get so excited when they do something half way good such as maintain a average economy with marginal growth?

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by Pudlugger
No it isn't. It was about 5.2% during the 90's and it is 4.4% now.

As for BBDE, well what can you say about such an incredibly misinformed rant? Maybe an economics course or two would help but I don't know. Wealth is created, you can't just give it to people or tax your way into it, it has to be earned. To dismiss the prosperity we have now so offhandedly shows no understanding of how economies work, or reality for that matter. Inflation is historically low now and prices are not "going through the roof". CPI has been below 4% during this administration which is low historically while real wages are up among the working class over the levels in 2000. Look it up if you don't believe me BBDE. Tax cuts work and they result in more investment, jobs and consumer spending. Tax cuts actually increase government revenues and we have just recorded the greatest increase in tax revenue ever this past year and that is on top of yearly increases of unprecedented growth in revenues since 2000. Tax cuts during JFK's administration and the Reagan administration did the same thing, increasing revenue. The budget deficit we have is the result of unrestrained spending. Reagan had a democratic Congress and he could not restrain spending along with the tax cuts. The Pubbies recently acted like drunken sailors too so there is blame to go around. However, if you want to see what happens when you increase taxes, over-regulate business, and force unions on industry look to Michigan. While the rest of the country enjoys 4.8% unemployment they have 7%. Businesses are leaving the state along with hard working folks to escape high taxes. The State budget is in the red and Gov. Granholm wants to raise taxes more. Toyota has passed GM as the worlds leading automaker, Ford is near bankrupcy and Toyota built their truck plant in Texas bringing great jobs and big bucks to San Antonio. I could write a book on how wrong BBDE is about this but why bother.

You are a sad, misinformed little man.

[Gobbla2001]

that's the deal keith, Pud's posting of this article was to say "wait, a minute, look, this Economy is not as horrible as it's presented to be"... you'd think this was the great depression the way most talk... that was the whole point of it... no, it's not all roses and a box of chocolates, but it's a lot better than what it is presented to be...

but now you're arguing about the war and other mistakes he's made...

he's made 'em, but we were talking about the economy, you couldn't come up with an explanations (besides that one graphic) so you brought up his other mistakes... no need for you to discus his success (with 9/11 happening, it's actually a damn good job, not great, but damn good)... you want to talk about his negatives...

that was my point and your long reply was pretty much about something other than the subject at hand...

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
You are a sad, misinformed little man.

Pud's 6'7... 265...

[sinton66]

maintain a average economy with marginal growth?

Did you not have an answer for my stock market question or did you just ignore it? AND, although you'll never admit it, he has done something good. He's kept terrorists busy in the middle east and off American soil where you and I LIVE.

[carter08]

the economy sucked under Herbert Hoover

[Keith7]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
that's the deal keith, Pud's posting of this article was to say "wait, a minute, look, this Economy is not as horrible as it's presented to be"... you'd think this was the great depression the way most talk... that was the whole point of it... no, it's not all roses and a box of chocolates, but it's a lot better than what it is presented to be...


what news are you watching?? I havn't heard people gripping about the economy much lately besides gas prices..

[Old Tiger]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
You are a sad, misinformed little man. Why do you care so much about politics? You're only 19 dude!

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Keith7
what news are you watching?? I havn't heard people gripping about the economy much lately besides gas prices..

it's been over his terms it has been argued, it's gas now, was gas a year ago, but in between it is presented as otherwise... it's not some big deal, but it's talked about on the news as if it's not very good... and talked about on here as if it not good with everyone diggin' up articles (both sides) by some hacks who are one-sided...

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Tiger WR
Why do you care so much about politics? You're only 19 dude!

Why does everyone think he's so young? he's freakin' 27 damn

[Old Tiger]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
Why does everyone think he's so young? he's freakin' 27 damn I was talking about Gary...lol.

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Tiger WR
I was talking about Gary...lol.

me too... Pud is 19...

[Old Tiger]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
me too... Pud is 19... LMAO! lol

[DU_stud04]

Originally posted by Tiger WR
Why do you care so much about politics? You're only 19 dude! why dont you care about politics.....your above 18. its your responsibility.

[Gobbla2001]

The economy was best under Sitting Bull...

[Keith7]

Originally posted by sinton66
Did you not have an answer for my stock market question or did you just ignore it? AND, although you'll never admit it, he has done something good. He's kept terrorists busy in the middle east and off American soil where you and I LIVE.

I think you answered your question yourself.. It is only the upper middle to upperclass that really get involved with the stock market so that can't be seen as a good indicator of economic success.. What hes done in the middle east has been anything but good, terrorist can come from anywhere not just the middle east so you can't assume that the war in the iraq / afganistan has kept the "Terrorist busy".. Bush has created a civil war that shows no signs of letting up and our troops are stuck over there paying the price for it..

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
The economy was best under Sitting Bull...
hahaha

[carter08]

http://www.shmater.com/george%20bush%20as%20fred%20flintstone%2049.jpg

[shankbear]

That is stupid saying that Bush created a civil war. What a joke. That wacked out so-called religion is made of nothing but hate....they hate each other as bad as they hate us.

[sinton66]

I think you answered your question yourself.. It is only the upper middle to upperclass that really get involved with the stock market so that can't be seen as a good indicator of economic success..

Again, I ask, who's fault is that? The little guy has only himself to blame. The opportunity is there for anyone to participate in.


What hes done in the middle east has been anything but good, terrorist can come from anywhere not just the middle east so you can't assume that the war in the iraq / afganistan has kept the "Terrorist busy".. Bush has created a civil war that shows no signs of letting up and our troops are stuck over there paying the price for it.

As for your second point, Bin Laden promised more attacks on American soil after taking credit for them immediately following 9/11. Ask yourself why that HASN'T happened.

What the US has accomplished in Iraq is to produce a "stalemate" with the terrorists, get Iraq to have a free election, give the elected government a chance to succeed, and to get the immediate attention of terrorist states like Iran and Syria. Iraq is a strategic move plain and simple. Look at a map of the middle east and notice that Iraq is right in the middle of them all. All east/west and north/south traffic in the middle east goes through Iraq.

[carter08]

Originally posted by shankbear
That wacked out so-called religion is made of nothing but hate....they hate each other as bad as they hate us.

Ever seen a real Koran
Not the things you find on the internet with fake verses of hate, but a real one

You should take some time and read a little of it

You'd be surprising how non- threatening it is

[Keith7]

Originally posted by sinton66
Again, I ask, who's fault is that? The little guy has only himself to blame. The opportunity is there for anyone to participate in.



As for your second point, Bin Laden promised more attacks on American soil after taking credit for them immediately following 9/11. Ask yourself why that HASN'T happened.

What the US has accomplished in Iraq is to produce a "stalemate" with the terrorists, get Iraq to have a free election, give the elected government a chance to succeed, and to get the immediate attention of terrorist states like Iran and Syria. Iraq is a strategic move plain and simple. Look at a map of the middle east and notice that Iraq is right in the middle of them all. All east/west and north/south traffic in the middle east goes through Iraq.

The lowerclass will never be a player in the stock market though because they dont have the extra money to risk in it..

and Iraq is a mess right now, I think you were right when you said that Iraq is a "stalemate" but really the thing that is a stalemate right now is the progress of the U.S... The streets right now in Iraq are less safe then they were 10 years ago so how much has the war really helped out iraq? and they think they are going to reach peace between the groups by building walls??

And for the person calling islam a religion of hate.. Do I hear a hint of hypocracy in you stereotyping everyone from that relgion as being full of hate?

[sinton66]

Originally posted by carter08
Ever seen a real Koran
Not the things you find on the internet with fake verses of hate, but a real one

You should take some time and read a little of it

You'd be surprising how non- threatening it is

Even the Bible can be interpreted in extremes. It doesn't matter how innocent a document is, it's some of the READERS you gotta worry about.

[shankbear]

Apparently the adherents to the koran do not follow it. That is the joke. They kill each other for gits and shiggles.

[carter08]

Originally posted by shankbear
Apparently the adherents to the koran do not follow it. That is the joke. They kill each other for gits and shiggles. ]

The majority of Muslims adhere to the Koran

[sinton66]

The lowerclass will never be a player in the stock market though because they dont have the extra money to risk in it..

Twenty years ago, a person could have bought stock in Microsoft for about two or three bucks a share. Who can't afford two bucks? We ALL make choices, some good, some not so much. All I'm saying is we're all in the same economic boat and it does no good for us to blame the administration for our own shortcomings.
If people aren't smart enough to follow the lead of those who HAVE made it big, then they have only themselves to blame.

[Emerson1]

Could of bought stock in google to. I am sure it was pretty low about 5 years ago, it's up to $400+ a share now.

[shankbear]

Their most visible are a bunch of bomb chunking idiots. Muslims adhering to their beloved koran knocked down the WTC, indiscriminately bombs innocent people and want ALL Americans dead. They don't give a crap if you are a democrat or republican...liberal or conservative. They want us dead.

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
You are a sad, misinformed little man.

Not sad, not little and definitely not misinformed. The numbers in this IBD article are not made up. You can verify them if you weren't so disinclined to learn the truth. As for my comments on the failure of liberal public policy in Michigan, Google Michigan economy and see for yourself.:)

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
me too... Pud is 19...

Ha ha, I was once long long ago in a Galaxy far away.:D

[carter08]

Originally posted by shankbear
Their most visible are a bunch of bomb chunking idiots. Muslims adhering to their beloved koran knocked down the WTC, indiscriminately bombs innocent people and want ALL Americans dead. They don't give a crap if you are a democrat or republican...liberal or conservative. They want us dead.

Again, that is the extremist minority.

There are many Christian Terrorist Groups

The Lambs of Christ
Army of God
The Westboro Baptist Church (http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/index.html)

they don't kill, but they are extremist terror groups

[bulldogman06]

Originally posted by sinton66
Did you not have an answer for my stock market question or did you just ignore it? AND, although you'll never admit it, he has done something good. He's kept terrorists busy in the middle east and off American soil where you and I LIVE.

My favorite retort to any argument about the middle east.

[sinton66]

Originally posted by carter08
Again, that is the extremist minority.

There are many Christian Terrorist Groups

The Lambs of Christ
Army of God
The Westboro Baptist Church (http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/index.html)

they don't kill, but they are extremist terror groups

See my post above....

Even the Bible can be interpreted in extremes. It doesn't matter how innocent a document is, it's some of the READERS you gotta worry about.

[carter08]

Originally posted by sinton66
See my post above....

i was give shankbear some proof though

[sinton66]

Originally posted by carter08
i was give shankbear some proof though

I don't think you succeeded. All he's saying is their extremists have become the recognized focal point for that religion. That fact is due in part to a lack of condemnation from their world leaders for the acts they committ. Your example doesn't show the radical "christians" to be the focal point of christianity, does it? All it shows is that extremism exists everywhere.

[rockdale80]

The April numbers show a disappointing slowdown, and a continuation of a mediocre upward trend.

The U.S. economy created just 88,000 net new jobs in April 2007, down from a revised 177,000 new jobs in March, according to new Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Manufacturing employment continues to decline with a drop of 19,000 jobs. The construction sector saw a decline as well, while the service-providing sector saw gains over the past month. Residential construction saw a seventh straight month of decline and is still well below peak employment in that sector.

Monthly job growth averaged 129,000 during the first four months of 2007, which shows a decrease from the average of 189,000 new jobs per month in 2006 and 212,000 new jobs per month in 2005.

The housing market decline and the associated home-lending market troubles continue to loom over the broader U.S. economy. The effect of the housing market decline is still largely unknown, but today’s employment data release shows there may be some continuing impact, especially in light of weak first quarter GDP numbers, which at 1.3 percent showed a slowdown in the overall economy.

The unemployment rate remained essentially unchanged, rising by 0.1 percentage points to 4.5 percent. This slight change was due to a substantial decline in employment as reported on the household survey. The increase in the unemployment rate was muted due to a large surge of people exiting the labor force, which masked a decline in employment.

Residential construction

Employment in the residential construction industry peaked in September last year and continues to remain weak, declining for the seventh month in a row. The number of people employed last month held roughly constant with a decline of an estimated 2,700 jobs last month, as shown in the figure below. This change brings the total job loss in the residential construction industry to 32,200 jobs, or a decline of 3.1 percent since the peak last year.




Growth areas

Some areas continue to grow despite labor market weaknesses. The health care industry added 37,000 new jobs in April. The leisure and hospitality industries, including restaurants and hotels, added 22,000 new jobs. And the service sector as a whole increased employment by 116,000 last month.

Labor force participation

The labor force fell by 392,000, and the number of people classified as out of the labor force increased by 611,000 last month. The number of people classified as unemployed increased by 77,000, which combined with a drop in employment of 468,000 brought the share of the population currently employed down 0.3 percentage points to 63 percent, still well below the peak of 64.7 percent prior to the last recession.

Conclusion

The data overall combined with the past two months of weak growth indicate a weakening in the labor market, and perhaps in the economy as a whole. The broader market may be experiencing spillover from the housing sector and higher gas prices, but the full extent of the damage may still be to come.

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by rockdale80
The April numbers show a disappointing slowdown, and a continuation of a mediocre upward trend.

The U.S. economy created just 88,000 net new jobs in April 2007, down from a revised 177,000 new jobs in March, according to new Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Manufacturing employment continues to decline with a drop of 19,000 jobs. The construction sector saw a decline as well, while the service-providing sector saw gains over the past month. Residential construction saw a seventh straight month of decline and is still well below peak employment in that sector.

Monthly job growth averaged 129,000 during the first four months of 2007, which shows a decrease from the average of 189,000 new jobs per month in 2006 and 212,000 new jobs per month in 2005.

The housing market decline and the associated home-lending market troubles continue to loom over the broader U.S. economy. The effect of the housing market decline is still largely unknown, but today’s employment data release shows there may be some continuing impact, especially in light of weak first quarter GDP numbers, which at 1.3 percent showed a slowdown in the overall economy.

The unemployment rate remained essentially unchanged, rising by 0.1 percentage points to 4.5 percent. This slight change was due to a substantial decline in employment as reported on the household survey. The increase in the unemployment rate was muted due to a large surge of people exiting the labor force, which masked a decline in employment.

Residential construction

Employment in the residential construction industry peaked in September last year and continues to remain weak, declining for the seventh month in a row. The number of people employed last month held roughly constant with a decline of an estimated 2,700 jobs last month, as shown in the figure below. This change brings the total job loss in the residential construction industry to 32,200 jobs, or a decline of 3.1 percent since the peak last year.




Growth areas

Some areas continue to grow despite labor market weaknesses. The health care industry added 37,000 new jobs in April. The leisure and hospitality industries, including restaurants and hotels, added 22,000 new jobs. And the service sector as a whole increased employment by 116,000 last month.

Labor force participation

The labor force fell by 392,000, and the number of people classified as out of the labor force increased by 611,000 last month. The number of people classified as unemployed increased by 77,000, which combined with a drop in employment of 468,000 brought the share of the population currently employed down 0.3 percentage points to 63 percent, still well below the peak of 64.7 percent prior to the last recession.

Conclusion

The data overall combined with the past two months of weak growth indicate a weakening in the labor market, and perhaps in the economy as a whole. The broader market may be experiencing spillover from the housing sector and higher gas prices, but the full extent of the damage may still be to come.

this is the funniest thing I've read all year lol...

"growth, growth, growth, growth, growing, upward trend... full extent of the DAMAGE may still be to come"

bwahaha

[Gobbla2001]

logic tells me if you create a lot of jobs, then there aren't gunna be that many jobs left to create shortly after...

but maybe I need to pay more attention or start drinkin' again I dunno...

[rockdale80]

Although the U.S. economy has been growing at
a rapid rate since early 2003, growth is likely to slow to a
moderate, sustainable pace over the next year and a half.
The Congressional Budget Office forecasts that economic
growth will diminish to an annual rate of 3 percent in the
second half of this year and then remain steady through
2007. Inflation in so-called core consumer prices (which
excludes the more volatile prices of food and energy) will
also moderate, CBO expects, dropping to 2 percent by
the end of next year. CBO anticipates that the unemployment
rate will average about 4¾ percent through 2007,
and productivity growth will be roughly 2 percent. Interest
rates on Treasury securities are forecast to rise in the
second half of this year and then drop slightly during
2007.
Several major forces are driving the economic outlook.
Working to keep inflation under control, the Federal Reserve
moved to a slightly restrictive stance in 2006, after
having gradually removed the stimulus to short-term
growth that it had maintained for several years. As a result,
interest rates, especially short-term rates, have increased.
At the same time, energy prices have risen,
largely as a result of developments in world markets for
petroleum and its products, and the housing market has
begun a long-anticipated slowdown.
Those factors are expected to slow the growth of consumers’
purchases of goods and services. Higher interest rates
reduce borrowing by consumers; higher energy prices reduce
the real (inflation-adjusted) income of households;
and the decline in the growth of house prices slows the
rise in households’ wealth. CBO expects that over the
next year and a half, consumer spending will grow more
slowly than in recent years.
The outlook for investment by businesses in new structures,
equipment, and software (business fixed investment)
is bright. Demand for goods and services from
domestic and foreign customers is still solid, so after investing
at low rates in 2002 and 2003, many businesses,
including oil companies, now seek to add capacity to
meet it. In addition, firms’ profits are high, corporate
debt is relatively low, and the cost of financing for investment
is still favorable.
Over the next 10 years, economic growth is projected to
slow, as members of the baby-boom generation begin to
leave the labor force. In CBO’s estimation, the average
annual growth of real gross domestic product will decline
from 3 percent in 2008 through 2011 to 2.6 percent in
2012 through 2016. Core and overall inflation, as measured
by the growth of the chained price index for personal
consumption expenditures (PCE), are both assumed
to average 2.0 percent over the 2008–2016 period,
and the unemployment rate is expected to average
5.0 percent. The average annual rate on three-month
Treasury bills over the period will be about 4.5 percent,
CBO projects; the rate on 10-year notes will average
5.2 percent.
Since January 2006, CBO has made three changes to the
economic assumptions about the labor market that affect
its projection of GDP over the next 10 years. First, CBO
lowered its estimate of the natural rate of unemployment
from 5.2 percent to 5.0 percent;1 second, it lowered its
estimates of the rate of labor force participation; and
third, it raised its estimate of the rate of growth in average
weekly hours worked in the nonfarm business sector. The
first and third changes raise projections of future GDP,
but they are more than offset by the second change. On
balance, the changes reduce the projected level of real
GDP by an average of 0.9 percent from 2008 to 2016. In
2016, real GDP is now expected to be about $133 billion
lower than CBO projected last January, but becauseprice level is now higher, the level of nominal GDP is
only $12 billion lower than CBO’s estimate from last
January.2
Forecasts and projections by their very nature are uncertain,
particularly in times of international conflict, and
the actual course of the economy could be different from
CBO’s current outlook. Through the end of 2007, major
economic developments that might result in a slower pace
of growth than CBO anticipates are significantly higher
energy prices; greater-than-expected inflation, which
could trigger more monetary restraint by the Federal Reserve;
a larger and much more widespread weakening in
the growth of house prices; an unexpected slowing in economic
growth among the United States’ trading partners;
or a major terrorist attack. Alternatively, the economy
might grow more quickly than forecast if house prices
and sales were stronger than expected, energy prices
dropped significantly, or foreign economies expanded
more than had been anticipated. Over the next 10 years,
paths for productivity, labor force participation, and national
saving that differ from CBO’s projections could result
in more or less growth than CBO anticipates.
Concerns About Higher Inflation
So far this year, overall consumer price inflation has remained
higher than it has been in recent years, and core
inflation has risen further above what many analysts believe
is the Federal Reserve’s “comfort zone” for price
growth—that is, 1 percent to 2 percent (see Figure 2-1).
That higher core inflation has raised concerns that monetary
policy will be tightened more than had been expected,
which might slow economic growth more sharply.
That possibility will become more of a likelihood if
households and businesses begin to think that inflation in
the future will be higher than it has been. History has
shown that when households and businesses raise their
expectations, it can be especially difficult to moderate
price growth without significantly slowing down economic
growth—because workers and firms may seek
higher wages and prices to try to protect their incomes
from losing purchasing power.
Yet the evidence is mixed on the outlook for inflation. Although
some indicators suggest that inflation could rise
further, other indicators suggest that the recent rise may
be largely temporary—provided that energy prices do not
climb even higher. CBO’s forecast incorporates the assumption
that core inflation will ease over the next year
and a half; however, inflation remains a major uncertainty
in the economic outlook.

[rockdale80]

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/74xx/doc7492/08-17-BudgetUpdate.pdf

[Pudlugger]

All in all even the CBO, which has historically tended towards the pessimistic side with the glass perpetually half empty, paints a pretty rosy picture with inflation at a very modest 2% and 5% unemployment over the coming decade.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by Pudlugger
All in all even the CBO, which has historically tended towards the pessimistic side with the glass perpetually half empty, paints a pretty rosy picture with inflation at a very modest 2% and 5% unemployment over the coming decade.

If you read the entire report you will also note that is all assuming the recent tax cuts end in 2010. I pasted a link above. Read it all the way through.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by rockdale80
If you read the entire report you will also note that is all assuming the recent tax cuts end in 2010. I pasted a link above. Read it all the way through. All the more reason to make them permanent. Look at the economic growth since those tax cuts.:clap: :clap: :clap:

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by rockdale80
If you read the entire report you will also note that is all assuming the recent tax cuts end in 2010. I pasted a link above. Read it all the way through.

CBO providing political cover to the dems in Congress who want to let these cuts expire hence foisting the largest tax increase in history on the American people. Make the cuts permanent and watch this economy grow through the roof. Businesses and individuals will be gaging their investment plans according to this. If the cuts are not going to be made permanent expect a recession as one thing that Wall Street and investors hate more than anything is uncertainty and high taxes on income and capital gains.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
All the more reason to make them permanent. Look at the economic growth since those tax cuts.:clap: :clap: :clap:

I guess I should have been more clear, but this state of the economy will only continue if the tax cuts are ended. Says the economy will become stale etc....just read the article if you have time. Pretty interesting. Its not the rosy picture your article painted.

[Old Tiger]

Originally posted by DU_stud04
why dont you care about politics.....your above 18. its your responsibility. Why care about something that I don't care about. My one little vote isn't going to effect anything unless I lived in Florida all those years ago

[thatsminty]

Originally posted by Tiger WR
Why care about something that I don't care about. My one little vote isn't going to effect anything unless I lived in Florida all those years ago

well then with that said you have no right to bitch about the system...

not that I'm implying that you do or not...but still, there are sooo many americans who don't even care to vote who constantly piss and moan about how our economy works--they surely shouldnt have the right to say anything considering they arent trying at all to help change it.

not that a vote necessarily means everything will automatically change, but it still doesnt hurt...

[Old Tiger]

Originally posted by thatsminty
well then with that said you have no right to bitch about the system...

not that I'm implying that you do or not...but still, there are sooo many americans who don't even care to vote who constantly piss and moan about how our economy works--they surely shouldnt have the right to say anything considering they arent trying at all to help change it.

not that a vote necessarily means everything will automatically change, but it still doesnt hurt... The only thing I care about is gas prices and my vote won't change those so it's whatever

[thatsminty]

Originally posted by Tiger WR
The only thing I care about is gas prices and my vote won't change those so it's whatever

everyone cares about the gas prices but as our money is being pissed away because of it...look at those who's pockets are getting filled because of some "good christians voting for the right man"

what a bunch of wanks.

[Pudlugger]

Detroit Free Press

Tax uncertainty worries companies

Increase may lead to firms leaving state, fewer jobs

May 7, 2007

BY SUSAN TOMPOR

FREE PRESS COLUMNIST

When 42-year-old Sam Harris talks about the tax picture in Michigan and the future for his company, Harris Glass Inc. in Redford Township, he'll tell you upfront that he was born in Detroit and has lived in Michigan his whole life.

"I really love Michigan and would like to see our economy turn around fast," said Harris, who started his construction-related company in 1989.

Even so, the possibility of paying higher taxes in Michigan has him contemplating opening a satellite office out of state. He knows others are testing the waters elsewhere.

The uncertainty of "what's going on is really making us think," Harris said.

For months, business leaders have been champing at the bit to know just what kind of tax bill they will face. Michigan's Single Business Tax expires Dec. 31, and no successor is in place.

On top of that, the state has budget shortfalls that just aren't going away.

How the state government handles this crisis ultimately could hit paychecks and pocketbooks across the state -- as businesses decide whether they'll add jobs, expand facilities or bring operations to Michigan.

Last week, we saw action on the business tax that set Lansing up for more haggling.

On Thursday, the Senate approved a Republican-sponsored plan to overhaul Michigan's business taxes. The plan differs from a Democratic plan the House passed Wednesday. Some say the House plan favors bigger businesses and manufacturing.

Yet the latest debate is welcome progress.

Any progress is good progress

"The momentum that's being created is a very good thing," said Sarah Hubbard, vice president of government relations for the Detroit Regional Chamber.

Hubbard hopes a compromise can be reached soon and signed into law by Gov. Jennifer Granholm during the chamber's annual policy conference on Mackinac Island from May 30 through June 2.

If a new structure isn't reached soon, business leaders and accountants say, some companies may hesitate about expanding or moving to Michigan. They want to know the kind of taxes they would owe.

"The longer it's up in the air, the more companies are going to look at Michigan as maybe not the best place to locate," said James P. O'Rilley, a certified public accountant and tax director for Doeren Mayhew & Co., P.C. in Troy.

O'Rilley said details need to be known by the end of June to give time to plan.

The theory is that the new business tax would be less burdensome for many companies than the Single Business Tax has been.

But some companies could end up paying more in taxes.

The House plan approved Wednesday would raise the bill for some construction contractors, real estate partnerships and service providers such as accountants and attorneys.

Harris -- whose company installs glass doors at drug stores, strip malls and other buildings -- could see a sizable tax cut under either plan, according to early calculations.

Under an early proposal by Granholm, he could have paid an extra $30,000.

His company has 18 employees and paid about $280,000 in state, federal and property taxes last year. About $15,500 was for the Single Business Tax and personal property tax.

Charles Owens, state director of the National Federation of Independent Business in Lansing, said one issue is that if a small business is set up as a partnership, it would not get compensation credits for the employees it has in Michigan under the House bill. Some have said that may be an oversight that could be corrected.

The small-business group does not support any replacement of the Single Business Tax. On reviewing the plans, though, the group sees the Senate plan as being fairer to small business.

'Michigan's dirty little secret'

For Michigan, the big budget woes don't end even once the state replaces one business tax with another.

The crisis has grown as fiscal planners ignored the structural changes going on in Michigan and the auto industry.

"Business leaders are concerned about the overall health of the state," said Terry Conley, tax practice leader for Grant Thornton in Southfield. "I think it's a confidence issue."

Jeff Scott, owner of Allan Tool & Machine in Troy, said he's worried about talk of imposing a state estate tax on wealthy people in Michigan. And while he supplies the auto industry, he's considering moving his company to New Hampshire because of tax concerns in Michigan.

What happens in Lansing is going to go a long way to determine what his company and others do, Scott said.

Tougher decisions are ahead -- even after a resolution is reached on the state's business-tax structure.

Longer term, how does the state deal with at least $12.5 billion in unfunded pension liabilities for public school employees and state employees? The $12.5 billion is the 2005 number found in the latest Michigan Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.

"I call it Michigan's dirty little secret," said James Jenkins, president of Jenkins & Co., a tax firm in Southfield.

The worsening budget deficit is serious enough to create buzz that state government could shut down next month or later if the mess is not resolved. That must be avoided.

"Shutting down government is like mooning Wall Street," said Patrick Anderson, chief executive officer of the East Lansing-based Anderson Economic Group.

"You don't tell your lenders that you're going to stop paying your bills and stop working."

Contact SUSAN TOMPOR at 313-222-8876 or stompor@freepress.com.

Copyright © 2007 Detroit Free Press Inc.

[JasperDog94]

All you need to do is look at recent history. Every time taxes were cut, the economy grew.

[duckbutter]

Originally posted by Pudlugger
The stock market as a whole probably is negatively impacted by high energy costs although energy stocks might benefit. Those folks heavily invested in Exxon probably are pretty happy . YES WE ARE! I make more off of Exxon in a year than I would ever spend on fuel.:D

[shankbear]

duck has his ducks in a row

[carter08]

Originally posted by sinton66
I don't think you succeeded.

Doesn't surprise me that you think that

[VanKampen]

democrats want our troops home so terrorism follows and then they can blame bush for making them mad. republicans favor tax cuts but democrats want to raise taxes. all in all, democrats favor making the federal government rich when it should be the state governments being rich. democracy is based on states controlling federal govt, not federal govt controlling the states.

[Pudlugger]

Nice nod to state's rights Van.