posted on October 15, 2004 09:55:45 AM new
October 13, 2004
By : J. Edward Carter & Cesar V. Conda
368 Economists Against Kerrynomics
The challenger's policies would bring "a lower standard of living for the American people."
[The piece originally appeared on National Review Online.]
Leading economists have a message for America: "John Kerry favors economic policies that, if implemented, would lead to bigger and more intrusive government and a lower standard of living for the American people."
That was the conclusion released in a statement Wednesday by 368 economists, including six Nobel laureates: Gary Becker, James Buchanan, Milton Friedman, Robert Lucas, Robert Mundell, and — the winner of this year's Nobel Prize in Economics — Edward C. Prescott.
The economists warned that Sen. Kerry's policies "would, over time, inhibit capital formation, depress productivity growth, and make the United States less competitive internationally. The end result would be lower U.S. employment and real wage growth.
posted on October 15, 2004 10:08:37 AM new
By Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post
The federal government reached its $7.4 trillion debt ceiling yesterday, forcing Treasury Secretary John W. Snow to delay contributing to one of the federal employees' pension systems to avoid running out of cash and possibly defaulting on government debt.
Since 2002, Congress has raised the borrowing limit by more than $1.4 trillion, as the government ran increasingly large deficits of $158 billion in 2002, $375 billion in 2003 and $413 billion for fiscal 2004, which ended in September. Yesterday the Treasury Department released its final 2004 deficit figure, which came in below initial forecasts but still at a record level in dollar terms.
If Republicans had hoped to avoid the issue before the election, Democrats sought yesterday to make them pay with a litany of accusations.
Campaign aides of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) noted that Bush's 2001 budget anticipated the debt ceiling would not have to be raised until 2008.
And, they said, the government has run up more debt in the past 17 months than was amassed under all the presidents from George Washington to Ronald Reagan
posted on October 15, 2004 10:20:37 AM newHog heaven
Congress throws money at special interests as deficit soars
The bill started as a small, sensible measure to rescind a $5 billion annual tax subsidy to about 1,800 U.S. exporters that the World Trade Organization ruled was a violation of international law. You might think Congress would happily apply that relatively small dab of money to paying the nation's bills. After all, the budget deficit is expected to hit $422 billion for 2004, the cost of the war in Iraq is at $150 billion and rising, and the national debt is growing by $1.71 billion a day -- that's right, a day.
Who benefits? General Electric is thought to be the biggest recipient, but drug companies and high-tech manufacturers profit, too. There's also the big buyout for tobacco farmers, plus something for NASCAR track owners, pro sports franchisees, makers of aircraft, ships, arrows and fishing tackle boxes (a big tackle box manufacturer is in House Speaker Dennis Hastert's district). And U.S. manufacturers with big profits from overseas operations will be able to bring those earnings home at about one-seventh the normal tax rate.
President Bush promised in a recent face-off with John Kerry that if re-elected he and the Republican-dominated Congress will cut the deficit in half. Put that promise right up there with his pledge to send a manned spacecraft to Mars. It didn't get off the ground, either.
Congress is piling up debt for our children to pay. Yet President Bush hasn't vetoed a single appropriation, and we doubt he'll start with this election-year bonanza. The hogs are in charge, and fiscal sanity has left town.
posted on October 15, 2004 10:22:57 AM new
Yes, so let's vote to elect kerry and add another $2.2 trillion dollars to those numbers...to pay for all his promises. Nothing is free...and all kerry's promised programs, increases in exsisting programs are only going to INCREASE those numbers....OR maybe he'll do like clinton did....get in office and RAISE OUR TAXES. I'm sure most liberals approve of that.
posted on October 15, 2004 10:35:36 AM new
You are totally clueless and ignorant if you think that the government can keep printing money and it never has to be paid off by the taxpayers. Of course taxes will be raised. Any suggestions how this massive debt will be paid for then? Think of the daily interest rates. The country is living on borrowed money.
The jobs are disappearing. How much tax money can be taken from a $6.00 wage to make a dent in the debt?
Yup, live your comfy lifestyle, laughing behind your computer screen and never worry about future generations at all because you think none of it will ever affect you. How selfish!
posted on October 15, 2004 10:46:18 AM new
Well, it seems that I'm not quite as clueless as you are.
To put this in simpler terms, think about your credit card. What if you keep spending and the bank that issued it keeps raising the limit. You are unable to pay it off but you keep on spending and they keep raising the limit. Duh......... disaster in the end.
posted on October 15, 2004 11:10:36 AM new
I loathe people like linduh who want a free ride...free roads, free schools, free environment protection, free fire and emergency services, free social programs to help the needy, free electricty and water service, a free war, free everything as long as they don't have to pay those nasty taxes....how Un-American can you get....those lazy "give me everything free" neocons make me sick.
I pay taxes as my duty and responsibility as an American citizen....if you don't want to pay taxes....leave!
I DO want fair taxes which is just not happpening under the bush "give the rich a break" tax plan.
I'm sure if I had as much "free time" as linda I could google search and find all the Republicans who have voted, at some time or other, for and against tax hikes and lowering taxes.....it's a long game.
BUSH has had HIS chance to help the economy and he put it right in the toilet.
posted on October 15, 2004 11:50:10 AM new
Linda_k, you keep saying there will be no more tax raises under Bush. I asked where you think the money will come from to pay for this massive debt that he has racked up.
Yes, I really do think you are clueless about how it will be paid and that you aren't thinking that future generations will be saddled with it or that the country is headed in a downward spiral.
BTW, you've spent the good part of a year now assuming sh$t about me and making up lies. But once again you turn the conversation to what a poor little victim you are just because I say you are clueless about the debt owing and you haven't been able to answer who will be stuck with it.
posted on October 15, 2004 11:53:03 AM new
Another opinion I completely agree with. taken from today's Federalist Patriot.
-----
As Wednesday night's final presidential debate so aptly displayed, John F. Kerry's populist rhetoric has reached nearly hysterical proportions. "In the past four years, in nearly every decision that he's made, President George W. Bush has chosen the powerful and the well-connected over middle-class Americans," Kerry said recently. "The only people George Bush's policies are working for are the people that he's chosen to help. They're working for drug companies. They're working for HMOs. And they're certainly working for the big oil companies."
"The powerful and well-connected"? This from the man who has twice married multimillionaire heiresses; a man who has multiple mansions on multiple continents; a man who windsurfs (poorly) off tony Nantucket; a man who rides a bicycle that costs more than some new cars; a man who doesn't blink at spending, oh, maybe $15,000 to jet his hairdresser cross-country for a trim.
But we digress. Where it comes to John Kerry's economic vision for America, The Patriot believes it's time we called a spade a spade. When Kerry spouts this "wealthy-versus-the-middle-class" rhetoric, he's flying a Marxist flag, and many Americans seem to be none the wiser. Are we serious, you ask? Marxism?
[For more on Kerry's collusion with Europe's most dated thinker, read "John Kerry, Useful Idiot..." -- http://federalistpatriot.us/alexander/edition.asp?id=275]
Stop for a moment to consider the language he uses (for all his faults, Kerry is no intellectual slouch). In Kerry's view, politics should be interpreted as a conflict between the antithetical interests of the wealthy and the ordinary American. To Kerry, a tax-break for a successful businessman amounts to an attack on a working American. Policies good for big business (as Bush's are) must, by definition, be bad for labor. Kerry is singing the Democrats' same old class-warfare song, designed to divide the country (and the electorate) in their favor.
But does he really believe that business owners are diametrically opposed to the workers who make their businesses possible, and that workers are equally opposed to those who provide jobs to support their families? He must, for this is the divisive picture he paints over and over: 'Bush favors the wealthy, while I'll fight for average Americans.' But if Kerry's premise is correct, then the only solution is to dismantle our economic system in favor of something as time-tested and successful as, say, Soviet socialism.
A capitalist system depends fundamentally on the premise that free economic exchange benefits everyone, whether rich or poor. The problem, of course, is that this would mean that Bush's tax cuts really do make sense.
This perspective culminates in the Kerry-Edwards argument that Bush's "tax cuts for the wealthy" have produced a medical coverage nightmare for the middle class. Despite the sheer hilarity of this diagnosis, our concern is their proposed solution.
They propose raising taxes on the rich and giving the proceeds to the middle class in the form of "better" health coverage. Incredibly, they don't even try to hide the connection. Kerry shamelessly asks for people's votes in return for his promise to take money from one group and give it to another. To quote one adroit observer, "That isn't waffling -- that's pandering!"
Consider countries that have implemented such policies in the past. Economic stalwarts like North Korea and the Soviet Union certainly ring a bell. Is the erstwhile Evil Empire now our role model? This is where domestic policy meets foreign policy. To be sure, Kerry's fraternizing with the North Vietnamese in 1970-71 is not unrelated to his present collectivist economic views. John Kerry betrayed his country then because he believed socialism offered a better way of life. Given his current rhetoric, it seems not much has changed in 33 years.
President George W. Bush, on the other hand, has consistently pursued a sounder economic policy, even if his articulation is often lacking. Here, he has steadily made his case on two fronts: first, by emphasizing the need for greater productivity as the heart of economic development; and second, by arguing that tax cuts are the best way to encourage productivity.
History shows that the best thing the government can do with respect to economic policy is let the people keep their money, and then get out of the way. As the President said Wednesday night, "I believe the role of government is to stand side by side with our citizens to help them realize their dreams, not tell citizens how to live their lives."
Unfortunately, the President's rhetoric sometimes has the unfortunate effect of masking much good in his economic policy; indeed, it often disguises -- and even undermines -- the very strength of this policy. To be fair, the limitations of the various media and debate formats -- 60-second debate responses and 15-second sound bites -- don't allow thorough explanations. In addition, at this late date in the campaign, both candidates are appealing to swing voters and moderating their explication in general.
Still, The Patriot believes the President must more thoroughly elucidate the effectiveness of his economic policy.
The bottom line is that when Kerry attacks Bush with his class-warfare rhetoric, Bush must attack the folly of Kerry's position at its foundation. 'Of course the rich benefit from my tax breaks, as do all taxpayers! Beyond that, it only makes sense that a fair tax cut returns the most to the people who pay the most. If we want more jobs in America, we should let the people who create jobs keep their own money!'
In the final days of this campaign, The Patriot encourages the Bush campaign to speak the truth boldly to the American people, for we believe that the majority of Americans -- even those curiously undecided voters, bless their hearts -- still prefer economic freedom. Big corporations are not evil. Wealthy people are not evil, nor are pharmaceutical companies, insurance providers, or--the greatest "menace" of all--multinational "outsourcers." Big corporations and big investors are in fact America's job and wealth creators. They're the ones among us who encourage productivity.
It's Kerry's vision of BIG GOVERNMENT that presents the greatest threat to our national prosperity and liberty.
To wit, when Kerry lectured, "Every plan that I have laid out -- my healthcare plan, my plan for education, my plan for kids to be able to get better college loans -- I've shown exactly how I'm going to pay for those," the President replied in fine style: "I want to remind people listening tonight that a plan is not a litany of complaints, and a plan is not to lay out programs that you can't pay for....It's an empty promise. It's called bait-and-switch."
President Bush continued, "It's your money. The way my opponent talks, he said, 'We're going to spend the government's money.' No, we're spending your money. And when you have more money in your pocket, you're able to better afford things you want. ... My opponent talks about fiscal sanity. His record in the United States Senate does not match his rhetoric. He voted to increase taxes 98 times and to bust the budget 277 times." Well said, Mr. President, well said.
The fine moments notwithstanding, in the final days of such a campaign, rhetoric tends to hide many policy differences espoused by the candidates and their parties. We the people must not be lulled into thinking the differences between the parties no longer exist, that they're all in fact Republicrats. In truth, the policy differences are real and important, and underlying the candidates' economic policies--as with their foreign policies--is a deep ideological gulf that no bipartisan bridge can span.
In the end, actions can say so much more than words.
According to Club for Growth President Stephen Moore, Kerry failed to make public all his tax records from last year, but according to those released, his household income was "$5.5 million last year and [he] paid $704,000 in income taxes. That means their effective tax rate was a whopping 12.8%," Moore wrote. That's right--Mr. Roll-back-the-Bush-tax-cuts-for-the-rich(himself) is paying less in taxes than most middle class families. George and Laura Bush, on the other hand, paid roughly 30% on one-tenth the income that the Kerry's brought in. Presumably, this was all legal on Kerrys' part, but this is the guy complaining about "Bush's debt" and "tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans," too.
If this is any indication of Kerry's real perspective on the surly IRS and inequitable tax code, perhaps he should be voting four more years for W., too...rhetoric aside.
posted on October 15, 2004 11:59:20 AM new
Another stupid assumption by linduh...oh and by the way linda while you pretend to ignore my posts...remember others DO read them, too!
linDUH says, "posted on October 15, 2004 11:53:03 AM new
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another opinion I completely agree with. taken from today's Federalist Patriot.
-----
As Wednesday night's final presidential debate so aptly displayed, John F. Kerry's populist rhetoric has reached nearly hysterical proportions. "In the past four years, in nearly every decision that he's made, President George W. Bush has chosen the powerful and the well-connected over middle-class Americans," Kerry said recently. "The only people George Bush's policies are working for are the people that he's chosen to help. They're working for drug companies. They're working for HMOs. And they're certainly working for the big oil companies."
"The powerful and well-connected"? This from the man who has twice married multimillionaire heiresses; a man who has multiple mansions on multiple continents; a man who windsurfs (poorly) off tony Nantucket; a man who rides a bicycle that costs more than some new cars; a man who doesn't blink at spending, oh, maybe $15,000 to jet his hairdresser cross-country for a trim. "
Well, any jackass except linduh knows that POOR people can't run for the presidency.....is BUSH POOR ? NO!
See, stupid, the president is supposed to work for Americans...all Americans, not just the rich ones like bush does. The PRESIDENT'S wealth SHOULD have nothing to do with policy making.
BESIDES BUSH GAVE JOHN AND THERESA A HUGE TAX BREAK and you're STILL voting for him.....how dumb is that?????
posted on October 15, 2004 12:02:17 PM new
AND I still believe that freeloader wannabes like linda should leave the country if they're not willing to pay their share of taxes.....they are traitors.
posted on October 15, 2004 12:28:52 PM new
crow- i remember a few years ago several stories regarding Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" where he led the march to axe social welfare programs. The best part of story was the research done where is showed that the county that Newt Gingrich lived in received the highest amount of federal dollars in what is often considered, "corporate welfare". One of the largest recipients of these breaks was none other than McDonald Douglas, one of the leading manufacturer of Military Planes.
Perhaps George W. Bush is correct that the constitution should be amended... In his eyes it should read, "We the Corporate Interests of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Fascist Society, establish our Will upon the People, insure domestic Ignorance, provide for the common defense of our Conglomorates, promote the general Corporate Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Increased Market Shares to our Stockholders and Board of Directors, do ordain and establish this Fascist Regime for the United States of America."
posted on October 15, 2004 01:01:43 PM new
In a second economic report, the Labor Department said the number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits rose by 15,000 last week to a seasonally adjusted level of 352,000. The four-week moving average of claims, which smooths out weekly changes, rose by 4,000 to a seven-month high of 352,000.
The jobless claims report reflects a labor market that is continuing to disappoint economists' expectations. The country added a lower-than-expected 96,000 jobs in September as the unemployment rate held steady at 5.4 percent.
The economy raced ahead at a 4.5 percent growth rate in the first three months this year before slowing to a 3.3 percent growth rate in the April-June quarter as surging oil prices sent the trade deficit soaring and took a big bite out of consumer spending.
For the year, America's trade deficit is running at an annual rate of $590 billion, 19 percent higher than the previous record, last year's $496.5 billion imbalance.
Democrats contend President Bush's failed economic policies have pushed the country back into a period of twin deficit troubles with the economy buffeted by runaway federal budget deficits which increase domestic demand and send the trade deficit soaring.
The administration announced Thursday that the federal deficit hit a record $413 billion for the 2004 budget year, which ended Sept. 30. That is up 9.5 percent from last year's record of $377 billion.
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
----------------------------------
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
On This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declares: "the area… that coalition forces control… happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
------------------------------
posted on October 15, 2004 01:04:56 PM new
Perhaps if today's Republicans were more open to a spirit of dialogue and inquiry, their doctrines might begin to catch in intellectual circles. Unfortunately, the attitude adopted by today's right is exactly the opposite.
Over the past four years, the conservative movement, led by the Bush presidency, has adopted a consistently antagonistic tone.
Where any true intellectual sees hard fact and shades of gray, George Bush and the modern right have learned to view the world only as they want to see it.
In academia, where scientific ambition and historical precedent are revered, openness is a guiding principle. But to Bush and company, conversation and dissent are just further impediments to personal gain.
The universe according to George W. Bush is a place where nuance and dissent have no role, where there is only room for a good-against-evil, for-us-or-against-us mentality.
Anyone who questions the execution of the Iraq war is helping the enemy, anyone who wants more international support is sending "mixed messages," and everyone who admits mistakes is a weak leader in Bush's eyes.
Indeed, the Republican camp's use of labels has become so bad that John Kerry scolded Mr. Bush for his anti-liberal jeers in the second debate. At any American university, the exclusive reliance on stereotypes is the mark of a misguided mind.
In his second encounter with the mild-mannered senator, however, unashamed simplification was Bush's dominant tactic.
I cannot imagine a major university where students or professors with the Bush administration's narrow mindset would prosper. Much unlike current Republicans, Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon gave an intellectual, rebellious tilt to solid conservatism.
Even Reagan preached a gospel of optimism that made his right-wing dogma appealing.But Bush and company's fire-and-brimstone conservatism cannot, and should not, thrive where true tolerance is valued.
In truth, Mr. Bush has never been comfortable with his own educational background and resents the "intellectual elite".
In attempting to establish himself as a politician for the common man, Bush played down his connections to Harvard and Yale.
And in what amounts to one of the most amusing cases of the Oedipus complex yet, W. has spent the entire election cycle trying to evade the legacy of his cerebral, internationalist father.
However, Bush's history as a horrible student and personal lack of intellectual curiosity are secondary to his academically unappealing policies.
Political scientists everywhere can justifiably deplore the Patriot Act. Billed as a weapon against terrorism, the misnamed piece of legislation allows the FBI to spy on an individual based on the books he reads or the Web sites he visits.
Since opinion articles criticizing the government can also be grounds for federal action, even I could be at risk.
The scientific community has even greater reason to be at odds with the White House.Given the opportunity to push for revolutionary projects in stem-cell research and energy independence, our present administration has done the bare minimum.
While academia values dissent and First Amendment rights, while universities would have opened their doors to new national endeavors, Mr. Bush's blind ideology has hampered our progress.
It should come as no surprise that legions of today's most innovative artists and entertainers, not to mention 48 Nobel Laureates, have endorsed John Kerry.
And it should be even less striking that Mr. Kerry, who, more than anyone else, should be acquainted with the administration's divisive, anti-intellectual spirit, declared that he will be a president "who believes in science."
If we are lucky this November, we might get a president who sees inquiry not as a path to chaos, but as a virtue, and who sees America's academia not as another source of opposition, but as a national asset.
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
----------------------------------
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
On This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declares: "the area… that coalition forces control… happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
------------------------------
posted on October 15, 2004 01:16:47 PM new
Bush's Economics Unsustainable
"Conservatives – never all that comfortable with the moderates of the party anyway – are starting to shift in their chairs, and many would leave if they had a place to go," writes Brendan Miniter, assistant editor of the Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal.com Web site.
Miniter is referring to the anger among Republicans over Bush's escalating budget deficits and double-digit spending increases over the past three years. "Today," says Miniter, "the party is morphing into what it once sought to unseat – big-spending politicians, interested only in holding onto power."
In "Spending Like a Drunken Democrat: Bush drives the nation towards bankruptcy," Peter Eavis warns in the Feb. 16 issue of The American Conservative that the current explosion in government spending is putting the United States on the road to insolvency.
"Forget the liberation of Iraq, George W. Bush will be remembered as the president who bankrupted America," writes Eavis.
It's projected that the price Americans will be paying in interest payments on the federal debt, measured as a percent of national income, will be equal to what we're now spending on everything at the federal level – equal to what we're currently spending on defense, homeland security, education, agriculture, health care, transportation, research, transfer payments, interest, Social Security and Medicare combined.
Bottom line: George W. Bush entered the presidency following three consecutive budget surpluses – a $69.2 billion surplus in fiscal 1998, a $124.4 billion surplus in 1999, and a record $237 billion surplus in fiscal 2000. The forecast at the time was for a federal surplus of $4.6 trillion over the next 10 years. Today, the Congressional Budget Office is projecting a buildup of $2.4 trillion in red-ink spending over the next decade, a $7 trillion switch.
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
----------------------------------
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
On This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declares: "the area… that coalition forces control… happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
------------------------------
posted on October 15, 2004 01:35:00 PM new
Just like I've already said - vote kerry in so our economic picture will be even worse, by approximately $2 trillion dollars.
Not for me, thank you. And I don't agree with reducing the funding to our military to pay off part of our deficit like clinton did to reduce his deficit. I also don't agree with the democratic party's idea of 'income redistribultion'. Some are more successful than other, usually by their OWN hard work, and imho, they deserve to keep what they make.
Our deficit will be paid down the way it always has been.
Given the status of the economy that President Bush inherited on Inauguration Day 2001 and the economic consequences of the terrorist attacks that followed eight months later, America's economic situation looks quite favorable as Election Day approaches. In fact, had the administration forecast 12 months ago the economic expansion that has accelerated during the past year, it would have been derided for projecting a "rosy scenario."
In the second of our series of editorials examining the candidates' positions, we look at the impact of Mr. Bush's economic policies and both his and John Kerry's plans for the future.
The data are quite impressive. First, total economic output, measured by gross domestic product (GDP), has increased by a sizzling 4.8 percent during the four quarters ending in June. That's the fastest four-quarter growth rate since the fabled Reagan expansion 20 years ago, and it is faster than any four-quarter period during the eight-year Clinton administration.
Second, during the latest 12 months, consumer prices have increased by a moderate 2.7 percent.
Third, having fallen from a cyclical peak of 6.3 percent in June 2003, today's unemployment rate is 5.4 percent, [b]a level that is below what many economists consider to be the economy's full-employment level. It is definitely below the average unemployment rates that prevailed during the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s.
Fourth, after incorporating the Labor Department's upward revision of 236,000 jobs for the 12-month period ending last March, the U.S. economy will have generated nearly two million jobs since payrolls began expanding 13 months ago.
The misery index, which is the sum of the unemployment and inflation rates, stands at a very respectable 8.1 percent today, precisely where it stood at this moment in 1996 when President Clinton ran for re-election. However, the comparable four-quarter GDP growth rate was 3.9 percent eight years ago, nearly a full percentage point below the 4.8 percent growth rate of today. Mr. Bush's father, it is worth noting, bequeathed to Mr. Clinton an economy that grew by more than 4 percent in 1992.
Mr. Clinton clearly did not reciprocate. Measured by declines in the broad-based S&P 500 and the tech-heavy Nasdaq, the stock-market bubble burst in March 2000. The Nasdaq alone was off nearly 50 percent by Jan. 20, 2001, well on its way to its eventual 75 percent correction. Altogether, the stock market would lose $7 trillion before beginning its recovery.
Less than two months into the Bush presidency, the economy tumbled into recession, which was foreshadowed during the third quarter of 2000, when the economy first declined.
During the last four months of 2001, as a direct consequence of September 11, the economy jettisoned nearly 1.2 million jobs. In December 2001, following years of accounting subterfuge, Enron went bankrupt, followed shortly by Global Crossing and WorldCom, as the corporate accounting scandal which had been brewing throughout the second Clinton term finally erupted.
Admittedly, it took some time for the Bush expansion to move into high gear. But it was moving against the strong headwinds of uncertainty as the war to depose Saddam Hussein approached.
While the budget situation has clearly deteriorated in a very big way, most of the fiscal problems can be attributed to the recession, the stock market's collapse and the necessity of fighting the war on terror.
Meanwhile, President Bush's tax cuts were arguably the best-timed countercyclical fiscal policy response in post-World War II history.
Given the currently robust expansion, the tax hikes promised by Mr. Kerry would hardly improve the economy over the short term. As for long-term solutions, which will involve dealing with the fiscal problems attributed to Social Security and Medicare, Mr. Kerry has demonstrated he doesn't even have a clue. In an August 2003 appearance on "Meet the Press," for example, he asserted that Social Security "starts running out of money in 2027." In fact, according to the March 2003 report by its Board of Trustees, Social Security's cash flow would become negative in 2018, and the IOUs in its trust fund would be exhausted by 2042. Either way, Mr. Kerry was off by nearly a decade or more.
Mr. Kerry's Social Security proposals offer no solution. He has effectively pledged to force younger workers to continue financing Social Security's presently designed Ponzi scheme with no hope of realizing their benefits.
[ edited by Linda_K on Oct 15, 2004 01:41 PM ]
posted on October 15, 2004 02:14:33 PM new
Rusty says,
""We the Corporate Interests of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Fascist Society, establish our Will upon the People, insure domestic Ignorance, provide for the common defense of our Conglomorates, promote the general Corporate Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Increased Market Shares to our Stockholders and Board of Directors, do ordain and establish this Fascist Regime for the United States of America."
Rusty! You forgot the most important part, ya know, the "Under Our God Or Else!"
part.
posted on October 15, 2004 03:32:27 PM new
Very funny, have you all noticed the LATEST TREND in the Bush supporters lie machine is big numbers. Ya know like John Kerry did this 236 times or did that 197 times or this 401 times. Very funny.
Now lets really talk BIG NUMBERS about Bush.
Millions out of jobs,millions no health insurance,millions working with less pay and benefits,millions in poverty,millions of kids being left behind,billions spent in Iraq,over 1070 Dead American soldiers,over 7000 wounded soldiers, America trillions of dollars in debt. These are the real big numbers and the truth.
The VERY ILL Bush supporters just don't get the fact that. AMERICA CAN'T AFFORD 4 MORE YEARS OF THE BUSH/CHENEY GANG AND THEIR LIE MACHINE.
as linda I could google search and find all the Republicans who have voted, at some time or other, for and against tax hikes and lowering taxes.....it's a long game.
