How Much Positive Momentum Does Pres. Bush's Reelection Entail?

[NATO AIR]

I've heard his reelection would be good for the economy, but in what ways and how good?

i ask this mainly because i don't know enough about economic matters to seperate spin from reality and facts in the majority of articles and columns i've read about this issue.

 

[sagegirl]

I've heard his reelection would be good for the economy, but in what ways and how good?

i ask this mainly because i don't know enough about economic matters to seperate spin from reality and facts in the majority of articles and columns i've read about this issue.

Only time will tell. There are idealogical differences in economic matters, and generally the terms liberal and conservative (and I dislike labels) get reversed when it comes to the economy.

If you think that the budget should be balanced (that is basically, that spending does not exceed revenues taken in) you can be accused of slowing the growth of the economy. But by over spending the budget, and accumulating a huge deficit, that at some point can, in and by itself, limit growth, its the same end result. And I guess most people think that growing the economy is a good idea.???!!! It depends on your point of view ....Keep in mind that Bush did not veto any spending bill in his first 4 years.

The budget and deficit issues are really a smoke and mirrors game.....a very serious game. In recent times inflation, spending, gnp and many other economic indicators are "adjusted" and usually paint a prettier picture of the facts. One instance of this is off - setting deficit spending by tying up funding from other programs,two examples are the social security trust fund and the airport tax (everytime you buy a ticket that money goes into a fund to improve air traffic control and airports) As long as the money in the fund is being used to offset some expenditure ,the money in the fund cannot be spent on its intended purpose. This sort of gaming goes on ALOT. Some refer to it as Reaganomics. It is a tactic to make things look good.

But in order to REALLY understand things, (and economics issues are the most difficult) one has to consider the international economy. Volumes have been written on it. some issues: currency movements, basically when foreign investors buy american goods or invest in treasuries, they convert their currency to US $$, the greater the demand for US $$$$ the more euros, yens, or pounds it takes to buy them. Since the war in Iraq, middle eastern investors converted alot of their $$$$ holdings and took them home. The result is less foreign investment in the US, translating into LESS DEMAND for dollars in world markets. However foreign governments still back up their own currencies with US $. (globally the US$ is still the principal medium of exchage) BUT THEY LIKE A STEADY DOLLAR The numbers go something like this: in 2001 the private American holdings abroad approx $6.7 trillion., that number has dropped by about $950 billion. a weaker US $ is good news for US exporters because it makes their products cheaper in foreign markets, it also helps US companies because it make imports more expensive.

Uncertainty: The problem is that we dont save enough. To keep spending and investing at the rates we have....we have to tap into the saving of foreigners, in bookkeeping terms, undersaving, or the amount we have to borrow.... the current "account defict" $503 billion in 2002. Americans consumed $435 billion more in goods and services that the US produced and we paid for the difference by selling hundreds of billions of dollars of assets to overseas buyers and borrowing the rest from abroad. ($1.55trillion in trade deficits over the last 5 years) .

All of this has huge repercussions, and world stability and world cooperation is needed. Unfortunately, we have a long way to go.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Nato. The real answer is simple. Bush will keep tax cuts and maybe cut some more, this will encourage investors to invest; the economy will grow, there will be more jobs created. of course like sagegirl pointed out, this assumes you consider growing the economy and providig more jobs for people is a good thing.

 

[sagegirl]

Nato. The real answer is simple. Bush will keep tax cuts and maybe cut some more, this will encourage investors to invest; the economy will grow, there will be more jobs created. of course like sagegirl pointed out, this assumes you consider growing the economy and providig more jobs for people is a good thing.

Growing the economy works for awhile, but it expands exponentially, and finally growth is all you have. A fundamentally strong economy can exist without depending on a high growth percentage and can ride out the ups and down of the financial markets. An economy dependent on growth to sustain it, is without foundation, and very volatile. Economic stability is based on so many factors that "models" (much like weather models) of what or how an economy will react to certain trends are unreliable. And yes, jobs, employment is a absolute must to economic security.

 

[nakedemperor]

Nato. The real answer is simple. Bush will keep tax cuts and maybe cut some more, this will encourage investors to invest; the economy will grow, there will be more jobs created. of course like sagegirl pointed out, this assumes you consider growing the economy and providig more jobs for people is a good thing.

Anybody have any historical documentation of the ramifications of lowering taxes during a war? Jus' curious.

 

[freeandfun1]

Anybody have any historical documentation of the ramifications of lowering taxes during a war? Jus' curious.

No, but there is plenty of history that shows that EVERY time we lower taxes we increase our tax revenues!! People (rich ones like Kerry, Heinz, Soros, et al) stop hiding their money offshore cuz they don't need to do so to avoid taxes so our government is able to increase the amount of money they bring in. It is a FACT! Look it up!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I've heard his reelection would be good for the economy, but in what ways and how good?

i ask this mainly because i don't know enough about economic matters to seperate spin from reality and facts in the majority of articles and columns i've read about this issue.

Look at it this way: it's going to be a lot better to have 2 businessmen running the country rather than 2 lawyers. We can look forward to capitalism instead of socialism.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Growing the economy works for awhile, but it expands exponentially, and finally growth is all you have. A fundamentally strong economy can exist without depending on a high growth percentage and can ride out the ups and down of the financial markets. An economy dependent on growth to sustain it, is without foundation, and very volatile. Economic stability is based on so many factors that "models" (much like weather models) of what or how an economy will react to certain trends are unreliable. And yes, jobs, employment is a absolute must to economic security.

Nice amateurish hyperbole, but noone is advocating runaway growth. Just enough to growth to serve increasing human needs is what's required.


If it is your intention to allow the human population to expand, the economy must expand too, to provide for their needs. Hence, why socialism=eugenics.

 

[shadrack]

Growing the economy works for awhile, but it expands exponentially, and finally growth is all you have. A fundamentally strong economy can exist without depending on a high growth percentage and can ride out the ups and down of the financial markets. An economy dependent on growth to sustain it, is without foundation, and very volatile. Economic stability is based on so many factors that "models" (much like weather models) of what or how an economy will react to certain trends are unreliable. And yes, jobs, employment is a absolute must to economic security.

So how do Bush tax cuts play into all of this? Should taxes have been raised on upper incomes and the investor class?

 

[freeandfun1]

So how do Bush tax cuts play into all of this? Should taxes have been raised on upper incomes and the investor class?

Investor class includes ANYBODY with an IRA or 401K.

 

[shadrack]

Investor class includes ANYBODY with an IRA or 401K.

And your point?

 

[freeandfun1]

And your point?

just wondering if you are advocating raising taxes on the middle-class.

 

[shadrack]

just wondering if you are advocating raising taxes on the middle-class.

I asked a question.

 

[freeandfun1]

ahhh..... sorry if I misread you.

History shows that tax cuts have ALWAYS increased revenues to the government. Therefore, no, taxes should not have been raised on the upport class or investors.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

70% of jobs are created by small business owners, many of whom file their taxes as personal income. Kerry's "rollback of tax cuts" (tax increase) would have devastated this very important job creating sector.

 

[Zhukov]

So how do Bush tax cuts play into all of this? Should taxes have been raised on upper incomes and the investor class?

Many reputable economists consider the optimal tax rate to balance revenue and growth to be somewhere around 23-18% across the board. That is lower than it currently is.

 

[shadrack]

Many reputable economists consider the optimal tax rate to balance revenue and growth to be somewhere around 23-18% across the board. That is lower than it currently is.

What if those tax cuts were given to the lowest classes only?

 

[freeandfun1]

What if those tax cuts were given to the lowest classes only?

HOW do you give tax cuts to those that don't pay taxes in the first place?

 

[Zhukov]

What if those tax cuts were given to the lowest classes only?

The way I heard it described, the 23% would be for the highest tax bracket, with the rate gradually decreasing to about 18% for those making around 50-60 thousand.

Below that, you don't pay taxes at all.

That would not only increase the share of taxes paid by the "rich", but would increase revenue overall.

Just giving those tax cuts to the lowest bracket wouldn't really have much effect at all.

 

[eric]

So how do Bush tax cuts play into all of this? Should taxes have been raised on upper incomes and the investor class?

NO. Keep in mind that 90% of all corporations in America are Sub-S corps, which would make them subject to the higher tax rates you speak of. This is not the way to grow an economy.