Bush: Bad for the Economy
 

http://www.economist.com/displaystor...ory_id=3262965

According to The Economist, a publication which endorsed Bush in 2000, the majority of economists polled said that Bush's economic policies are either "bad" or "very bad."

Re: Bush: Bad for the Economy
 

I'm going to assume that the 7 of 10 that disapproved of Bush's plan were the same 7 of 10 that approve Kerry's...

Re: Bush: Bad for the Economy
 

I'm also sure you remember the Nobel Prize winning economist that said about two days ago that not only were President Bush's tax cuts a good idea, but in fact were not steep enough and should have been much bigger.

As for them being "bad" and "very bad"... why is the job rate going up, unemployment going down (in fact its below the rate that Clinton had when he was re-elected) and the home ownership rate is the highest in the history of our country? yes, Bush's policies have been economic policies TERRIBLE. :rolleyes:

*realizes he is debating politics*

CRAP!!!

*runs out of room*

Re: Bush: Bad for the Economy
 

Don't deny your calling in this land of liberal puppets. Take up your true destiny!

Re: Bush: Bad for the Economy
 

Did someone mention politics and puppets?




Team America: World Police comes out today! It's gonna be fantastic. :D

Re: Bush: Bad for the Economy
 

Paul Krugman is also a Nobel Prize winning economist. He teaches at M.I.T. And he has always said from the beginning that Bush's tax cuts are a bad idea.

Economists are famously unable to agree on anything, but when a majority of them believe something, you probably should listen.

Oh, and if the unemployment rate is going down and the job rate is going up (which is the same thing), maybe that's because the job rate has been so low in the first place that it didn't have anywhere to go except up.

Re: Bush: Bad for the Economy
 

It's unfortunate that everyone blaims Bush for every single economic shortfall of this nation, although when the recession that has been hitting our nation recently actually began in the Clinton administration. Nobody seems to notice little things like that. They also don't realize that a resession like that might have been the cause of all the initial unemployment during the Bush administration.

It is also not realized that this resession was fairly short and the upturn has been very strong this year, but we don't want to talk about the positives, right? This is an election year! Let's speak about the bad.

Re: Bush: Bad for the Economy
 

You know, Blackmane, if you had actually read the article, you would see that the criticism these economists have for Bush have nothing to do with recessions. You won't even see the words "recession" or "recovery" in the article. The economy isn't all about unemployment numbers and GDP, you know.

We were splurging completely out of control during the Clinton years, and we are now paying for it. However, a recovery was pretty much guaranteed to happen. The economy goes in cycles.

These economists are criticizing Bush's tax cuts because it balloons the deficit and sends the national debt skyrocketing. I don't know if you're worried about it or not, but if something isn't done to establish fiscal discipline, Social Security and other government programs could be jeopardized. It will also lead to weakening of the dollar. In other words, inflation.

Re: Bush: Bad for the Economy
 

There is one big problem with that theory, and that is that lowering taxes increases revenue which then makes up for the cuts through volume. The same thing happened in 1986(?) with Reagan's tax cuts. He slashed taxes yet revenue for the remained consistent. Raising taxes or even maintaining them have shown to do more damage to the economy than good.

The problem comes with SPENDING. Reagan spent like a bastard trying to make Russia go broke, which he did, but it led to a recession.

As for goverment programs being in jeopardy, thats because we refuse to allow our programs to GAIN money rather than remaining as slush funds dependent on public funds that never match expenditures. Here's a fact: The stock market over the last 50 or so years has maintained a 11% return on investments. Its not that hard to find a mutual fund that maintains that level of return... SO WHY AM I BEING FORCED TO PUT PART OF MY PAYCHECK INTO A SYSTEM THAT IS DESIGNED TO LOSE MY MONEY????? Privatize these programs instead of stubbornly supporting social programs that were never designed to be permanent in the first place.

Well crap. It looks like I'm back, but I'm going to pick my spots a little better this time around.

Re: Bush: Bad for the Economy
 

I agree with you strangler that I don't think we should have to pay social security, however.. If it's going to keep some old lady off the street now, then I'm happy with my decision, I'll call it my chairitable deduction... I wonder if thats a tax write off.. hehe :errr:

Re: Bush: Bad for the Economy
 

I think old people should have planned more effectively for retirement when they had the chance. It's their own damn fault if they have no money. Okay that's a little harsh, but I do think we expend to many resources on old people. Especially fat old people.

Re: Bush: Bad for the Economy
 

You guys in the states have no idea what social security tax really is.


We Canadians have health care and social security taxes to pay. gah.


And it's going to get worse real soon with the number of baby boomers retiring on the rise.

Re: Bush: Bad for the Economy
 

Unfortunately for people growing older, there is really no way to maintain systems like social security where returns don't match payments going in. I read in the newspaper that if we either doubled the taxes to these programs immeidiately or cut benefits in half immiedietely and made them permanent, that that would cover the increasing gap in shortcomings.

Re: Bush: Bad for the Economy
 

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that Social Security should be dismantled. I believe the moneys collected should be locked and invested instead of sitting in a slush fund earning nothing and available to be used for whatever the government feels like spending OUR money on without asking us for permission.

I'd have no problem with Arlen Greenspan finding a nice Mutual Fund to invest my money in, so that I'll actually GET IT someday. :D