Thank you Decider

[gjreda]

Ironically...or certainly coincidentally, two articles today about the Bush economy ranking near or at the top compared to other administrations past.


http://newsbusters.org/node/13925

I, personally, am not criticizing the economy now.  In pains me to say it, but currently, the economy is in decent shape (although I would say much of that has to do with the excellent job Bernanke has been doing so far and the reputation he is already earning).  I can't stand Bush.  At all.  But the economy has been doing extremely well.  That being said, I think the point many are making, myself in particular, is that he is leaving the economy in bad shape for others.  I actually wrote a paper about the budget for my Intermediate Macro class this semester and the problem is that Bush is taking the mentality that, come 2008, the budget is no longer his problem.  It's pretty much the samething you guys have been saying about his handling of the Libby commution.  Dems hate him.  The media hates him.  The center hates him.  The only people sticking by him are the far right, and because of that, Bush is pretty much giving everyone else the middle finger.  I believe it was Murff who mentioned that Bush has fallen so far from grace with so many that he might as well just commute Libby because things can't get worse with everyone else and doing so will win praise from the right.  I think it is the samething with the budget.  He has cut taxes and shown no signs of concern whatsoever towards the budget because, well, everyone else hates him, so why not make the right like him more?  I just feel that we are going to run into the problems in the coming years when Bush will be out of office, and then everything is going to get blamed on the President at the time.  Bush has left the budget in complete disarry to whoever comes in to handle it and we will see the effects in the coming decade.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Pakuni, I think the reason why Carter's ranks that way is that we're only talking about manufacturing in this instance and as you will recall (we all do), the first two years under Reagan things were still really tough going. 


Note the last bullet point as well  "Carter's very good manufacturing index average masks a disasterous 1980 where the index's reading at one point (May of that year) fell to an all-time near-death low of 29.4"

[ChicosBailBonds]

 Bush has left the budget in complete disarry to whoever comes in to handle it and we will see the effects in the coming decade.

Not to be picky, but a budget is a yearly process.  It's also approved by the Congress, which is currently controlled by Democrats.  When the President comes in, they will submit their own annual budget.

Again, how about CUTTING SPENDING.  That takes courage, something in very short supply.

[gjreda]

 Bush has left the budget in complete disarry to whoever comes in to handle it and we will see the effects in the coming decade.

Not to be picky, but a budget is a yearly process.  It's also approved by the Congress, which is currently controlled by Democrats.  When the President comes in, they will submit their own annual budget.

Again, how about CUTTING SPENDING.  That takes courage, something in very short supply.

Sorry, I meant the deficit there.

But I couldn't agree with you more about cutting spending.  Some conservative economists have even argued that was the true point of the tax cuts... to create a slight force to cut spending in the future, but as we have seen from politicians of both sides, that simply does not happen often.

And you are also essentially arguing what I have been arguing from the beginning.  Tax cuts are meant to be offset by spending cuts... not increased spending as Bush has done.  If he wanted the tax cuts, he should have nixed some of his spending.

Edit:  I need to learn to start proof reading my posts.

[Pakuni]

Again, how about CUTTING SPENDING.  That takes courage, something in very short supply.

Tough to cut spending when you're shelling out something in the neighborhood of $465 million a day for a war halfway around the world.

[Murffieus]

Eaglewarrior----please don't lecture me on economics----i made a damn good living in the investment biz for 30 years.

Supply side economics is built around concept that you reduce taxes in recessions (Bush 2002-03) tp stimulate the economy-----at first significant deficits result, but as the economy recovers more money comes into the treasury in the form of taxes (more people have jobs, spend more, invest more) which pays down the deficit.

What's important is not the nominal amount of debt, but the debt/deficit as a percentage of GNP----got up to 3.5% in 2005 before it started coming down.

IBM borrows money, AT&T borrows money, just about all corporations borrow money (some as much as 50% of their capital structures)-----so why can't government? Debt is not a bad thing----excessive debt is-----and 3.5 percent of GNP isn't anywhere near excessive!

Three times in my lifetime taxes were reduced significantly (Kennedy 1960, Reagan 1984, Bush 2003)----and each time the economy boomed with out inflation resulting!

[gjreda]

Eaglewarrior----please don't lecture me on economics----i made a damn good living in the investment biz for 30 years.

Supply side economics is built around concept that you reduce taxes in recessions (Bush 2002-03) tp stimulate the economy-----at first significant deficits result, but as the economy recovers more money comes into the treasury in the form of taxes (more people have jobs, spend more, invest more) which pays down the deficit.

What's important is not the nominal amount of debt, but the debt/deficit as a percentage of GNP----got up to 3.5% in 2005 before it started coming down.

IBM borrows money, AT&T borrows money, just about all corporations borrow money (some as much as 50% of their capital structures)-----so why can't government? Debt is not a bad thing----excessive debt is-----and 3.5 percent of GNP isn't anywhere near excessive!

Three times in my lifetime taxes were reduced significantly (Kennedy 1960, Reagan 1984, Bush 2003)----and each time the economy boomed with out inflation resulting!

Sorry Murff, but in all honesty I don't care about the living you've made.  I'll trust my Marquette economics background as well as what the experts in the field have to say in regards to the subject.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1143

And don't lecture me about supply-side economics.

[Murffieus]

Eagle----well tell that to jack Kennedy (1960 tax cut)----tell that to Ronald Reagan (1984 tax cut)----no spending cuts there and spawned two of the greatest economic expansions of all time!

Don't listen to those left wing doom & gloom professors at MU or otherwise----they don't know the price of a loaf of bread!
 

[gjreda]

Murff, what I have been arguing for this whole time is that Bush needed to cut some spending somewhere at least in an attempt to do something about the deficit that he is only worsening with the war.  I've been saying this whole time that the tax cuts have been a great thing because we were in a mini recession and things could have gotten worse, but the tax cuts saved us.  However, at some point, you have to cut spending.  At some point someone needs to start caring about the deficit.  Bush had talked about how he was going to cut spending around the tax cuts and never did.  Instead, he spent more!  The cuts were great, but the deficit is not.

It seems that Harvard economist Gregory Mankiw seems to share a relatively similar view.  Oh yea, he was Bush's economic advisor at the time of the tax cuts.

Of course, the expansionary effects of the tax cuts will be offset to some degree by the effects of the budget deficits that arise from lower revenues. Deficits can raise interest rates and crowd out of investment, although I should note that the magnitude of this effect is much debated in the economics literature. The main problem now facing the U.S. economy is not high interest rates, but at some point continued deficits would matter and could impede growth. This is why, as the President has said, spending restraint is so vital.

The Administration would prefer not to have deficits, but deficit reduction is only one of many goals. Reversing the tax cuts today, as some have suggested, would depress growth and job creation. This is a matter of priorities: In the face of a shrinking or barely growing economy, an investment slowdown, and continued job losses, the President made growth and jobs his number one economic priority. There are others who think he should make deficit management the top priority – but the Administration does not share that point of view. Deficits are worrisome, but not as worrisome as an economy that is not growing and is rapidly shedding jobs.

It is also important to be aware of how these deficits arose. About half of the change in the fiscal outlook since the President took office is attributable to the weak economy, including the stock market. About a quarter is due to higher expenditures, mainly on homeland security and defense. The last quarter is due to reduced revenue from the tax cuts. And these estimates are based on static scoring, so they surely overstate the role of the tax cuts.

What is important is to have a plan under which the deficits shrink over time relative to the size of the economy. This is the case under the President’s policies. The deficit as a share of GDP is projected to diminish by more than half over the next five years.

The most important fiscal challenge facing the United States is not the current short-term deficits, which will shrink, but instead the looming long-term deficits associated with the rise in entitlement spending as the baby boom generation retires. This challenge is simply the march of demographic destiny combined with our pay-as-you-go entitlement system. It is not a new challenge, and it was not created by tax cuts or solved by previous tax increases. The President’s Budget has correctly called this issue “the real fiscal danger.”


http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/07/on-charlatons-and-cranks.html

Four years later and spending has only increased.  All I am saying is that he should have attempted to cut spending as he said he would.  The economy is no longer in a recession and things are going rather well.  How about some spending cuts now?

[mviale]

Thankfully - Generation X has 401ks - Murf did you plan on social security?

[Murffieus]

Eagle---congress spends the money-----GWB has vetoed sveral appropriation bills of late. Of course spending has to be kept in check.

Mviail-----401ks started in the early 1980s (IRAs before that)----so us depression babies were taken care of!

[gjreda]

Eagle---congress spends the money-----GWB has vetoed sveral appropriation bills of late. Of course spending has to be kept in check.

Mviail-----401ks started in the early 1980s (IRAs before that)----so us depression babies were taken care of!

Several is a bit of an exaggeration.  He has used his veto power THREE times in nearly 7 years.  And two of them were for embryonic stem cell research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes#George_W._Bush

He would have only used his veto twice had it not been for the withdrawl date on the Iraq Accountability Act.

I understand that congress spends the money, but he didn't feel like vetoing anything when the "conservatives" were in control.  Both sides need to use discretion when spending, but Bush's goal was to "dimish the deficit by more than half over the next five years."  Instead, he has increased it greatly.

[Murffieus]

Excessive spending is the least of our worries right now----much bigger threat is radical islam. Going to take plenty of money to eliminate or even control that threat----just like it took plenty of money to prevail in World War II!

Korean War spending at a 13% of GNP level-----Vietnam 12 % of GNP level-----in World War ll, 27% of GNP level spending----or 3.5 trillion per year in todays dollars-----and guess what----the country is still thriving 60 years later!!

[mviale]

Murf - good for you and I hope we will have social security for those americans that didnt have enough savings to invest.

[Murffieus]

Social Security will ALWAYS be here----if the Dems would go along with GWB's privatization plan and invest some SS monies in stocks-----everyone would have their equivilant of a 401k or IRA!

The Dems are guaranteeing a low level financial retirement for the lower economic class!

[ChicosBailBonds]

Murf - good for you and I hope we will have social security for those americans that didnt have enough savings to invest.

Or the ones that weren't responsible enough to save or blew all their money knowing Uncle Sam would be there to bail them out...again.  Hey mviale?   

[mviale]

I believe the republican congress squashed GWB's SS plan - that was another failed Bush initiative prior to 2006.

This Guy is not the decider, but the failure.  At least Carter made peace.

[mviale]

Chicos - see pension robberies by Big Business - not all poor people are stupid and lazy.

[Murffieus]

mviale----you're wrong Republicans were overwhelmingly for it----there were even some Dems for privatizing SS----but the Republicans couldn't muster the necessary 60 votes to stop a filibuster.

You sound like Neville Chamberlin in 1938----"peace in our time"----and at any cost!

[mviale]

You mean Bush had both houses and he could not beat a filibuster? Where is the leadership?

[ZiggysFryBoy]

You mean Bush had both houses and he could not beat a filibuster? Where is the leadership?

Beating a filibuster requires 60 votes in the Senate.  The GOP had, what, 52 Senators at most?

[mviale]

I guess reaching across the aisle is not an option for GWB. He needed 8 votes

[Pakuni]

Beating a filibuster requires 60 votes in the Senate.  The GOP had, what, 52 Senators at most?

55.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chicos - see pension robberies by Big Business - not all poor people are stupid and lazy.

Mviale...yes there have been some gross actions by some big businesses and those people are sitting in jail right now, as they should be.  But also see pension "robberies" by Big Unions where they have forced companies literally into bankruptcy because of what they are demanding (and the companies are stupid enough to cave in).

It will be a MIRACLE if GM's employees in their 20's today see their pension in 45 years.  Something has to give. 

Government can't be there to wipe your nose and put on the diapers from cradle to grave..nor should it. 


It's like every time I see these IRS commercials where you pay pennies on the dollar or the bankruptcy binge of the 1990's.  We became a do-over society, which in theory is compassionate and fine but in the meantime what message are you sending to everyone else that is paying their tax liabilities IN FULL and is scraping by not buying the boat, etc and forced into bankruptcy.  People that aren't playing the game and doing things on the up and up are damn pissed off.

[ChicosBailBonds]

You mean Bush had both houses and he could not beat a filibuster? Where is the leadership?

The leadership is that he tried....however wrong the tact was.  Instead, our great "leaders" in both houses just punt it along down the road.  Because Lord knows one side certainly wouldn't do any advertising and political harranguing saying Grandma's check would arrive in the mail under some scare tactic....nah, only one side uses scare tactics.