<p>If you look at an average Americans salary and expenses, I think you will find that any tax breaks or salary increases have been more than offset by increased medical, education and other various livng expenses. When a factory worker is laid off from a 27 year job and is forced to take two jobs at lesser pay and benefits to get by some people will spin that as job creation, while others will see it as a economic loss. The inflated housing market allowed some to refinance and to get a temporary cash bump, but a mortgage is still a loan and if housing bubbles flatten out there will be some pain for those counting on continued housing inflation. Incidentally, if your house doubled in value…it may also indicate that there are fewer people who will be able to afford a house.</p>
<p>I agree we should not just look at gas prices as an indicator, but the price of fuel drives the costs of bringing goods to market, and the cost of heating homes this winter will be a severe burden for many people. Then there are all those families who have lost income because their family members are fighting the War for Oil, they are not better off.</p>
<p>The only people who have benefited seem to be those with substantial wealth, and they seem to have created a fantasy version of economic reality that the rest of us are to believe as the federal government puts each one of us greater in debt by the minute.</p>
<p>This everything is rosy attitude shows how little some people learned from Katrina.</p>
<p>Everyone on this board seems to think that what Congress / the President does really does effect the economy. Tax cuts - which I agree with - don’t stimulate the economy in the short-term. A low tax rate over many years is what stimulates an economy. However, tax rates really don’t fluctate that much between Democratic and Republican Presidents.</p>
<p>Therefore, President Bush is not to blame for the economic downturn in 2000 as he should not take credit for the good economic numbers out recently. The same is true for the economic prosperity felt during the Clinton years. The American people should take both credit and blame for the current economic situation.</p>
<p>However, a President can effect an economy in the long-term by going to war, running up deficits, stopping new research (stem-cell), making our education system worse (Intelligent Design). Clearly the 400 Billion Dollars we spent on Iraq (I think that is the right number) and the huge deficits we have every year will not be good for the economy. I tend to be a moderate and vote Republican sometimes and sometimes Democratic. </p>
<p>What I don’t understand is this. Why Republicans support the President’s policies? He spent 400 Billion on Iraq and ran up our deficits.</p>
<p>That 400 Billion Dollars could have been better spent in upgrading our education system. Do you know my #1 worry? India and China - not because of their military, but because of their potential economic power and the possibility that in 50 or so years, they will be more powerful than us.</p>
<p>“That 400 Billion Dollars could have been better spent in upgrading our education system. Do you know my #1 worry? India and China - not because of their military, but because of their potential economic power and the possibility that in 50 or so years, they will be more powerful than us”.</p>
<p>Well, you’ll probably be dead then so it’s OK. :)</p>
<p>What Congress and the President do very well is decide how the economic pie is going to be divided up.</p>
<p>dmd, check the dates of the poll more carefully. When it was conducted, “4 years ago” meant the end of the Clinton “glory years”. When it was conducted, the Dems were telling everyone that they were as bad off as the Great Depression. Yet, individually, they did not feel badly at all.</p>
<p>I think things are getting better
4 years ago after 9/11 my husband was laid off. He was able to find another job at his company ( well basically doing the same thing- but at a much lower pay scale) and we were grateful for that.
However it has taken till just a few days ago, for him to be granted his request to resume his former job title and pay structure.</p>
<p>In the last 7 years my premium for dependent health coverage through my employer has doubled (and I work for a deep-pocketed non-profit widely regarded for its generosity towards employees). Copays have doubled as well. But, hey, inflation is only five percent!! How comforting…</p>
<p>Our premiums doubled as well so we had to get a $10,000 per person deductible to bring our premiums down. As for gasoline prices, I don’t even look. I just drove 180 miles today and got a little over 50 mpg (in my hybrid).</p>
<p>Did you actually look at your link? President Bush’s tax cuts weren’t enacted in 2000, they were enacted in May, 2003. Since the tax cuts of May, 2003, federal tax revenues have soared.</p>
<p>You responded to my previous post by telling me that I was wrong about revenues expanding as a result of Bush’s tax cuts. Your link shows that I was correct. Revenues have expanded since the tax cuts. What part of that statement don’t you understand? I didn’t make any comment about Bill Clinton raising taxes or GDP being up 30%. I just made the statement that Bush cut income tax rates and federal tax revenue has increased dramatically since those tax cuts.</p>
<p>I don’t have the most recent CBO report on tax revenue collections. However, Federal tax revenue in the first eight months of this fiscal year surged by over $187 billion - a 15.4% rise in federal tax receipts over 2004. Individual and corporate income tax receipts are up 30% in the two years since the tax cut.</p>
<p>Thus, we’re back to my original post - income tax rates were cut in 2003 and federal tax revenue has soared since those tax rates were cut.</p>
<p>However, Clinton raised taxes and the economy expanded. Bush lowered taxes and the economy expanded. </p>
<p>The difference is we now take in less revenue than when the economy was 30% smaller.</p>
<p>I think we needed tax cuts when Bush proposed them. The tax cuts were too large and went to the wrong people. So now we have projected deficits as far as the eye can see.</p>
<p>Now we have a booming economy. So since the tax cuts were sold as a way to get the economy moving and it is moving, we can now start eliminating the tax cuts and bring some fiscal responsibility back to Washington.</p>
<p>dstark, you were actually closer than you think. </p>
<p>The graph provided by Luskin is hilarious. You probably can see that only a sliver of the upward tax revenues has actually transpired (well below 2000 levels), while the overwhelming majority of the slope is in the la-la land of future “predictions.” Now who makes these particular predictions? Luskin says the “Office of Management and Budget”, without of course telling his readers that this is a direct extension of the White House. If you follow his link and cut out some of the end, you can see many other articles that all say the same thing: Bush is a visionary, his economic plans are a gift from God, etc etc. Them saying that the economic outlook under Bush looks promising is like Jerry Bruckheimer saying, “The next film by me, Jerry Bruckheimer, sounds like it will be very exciting and great. I also enjoy the outfit I’m wearing. Oh, you’re very kind, self.”</p>
<p>And of course, while Luskin puts up some more graphs that I am not entirely convinced weren’t drawn in MS Paint, he forgets to do the most obvious graph of all with tax revenues superimposed on federal government expenditures. Opps!</p>
<p>Barrons… Volcker, Greenspan, and Robert Rubin all think we have problems coming if we don’t get our finances in order.</p>
<p>BlackPenguin, I really love Luskin’s graph. You’re right. He doesn’t have government expenditures or GDP numbers in there. His graph wouldn’t look too good with those numbers. I wonder how he could have used federal revenue numbers to show Bush’s tax cuts increased federal revenues, and left Clinton’s numbers in that show tax increases increased federal revenues. I think he made a mistake. :)</p>
<p>Many years ago, I used to know Don Luskin so I love his graphs. :)</p>
<p>Did you catch Rubin’s speech at Syracuse? Very good. I always liked Rubin.</p>
<p>Here is the link. Barron’s you should watch it too. I’m sure you would like it whether you agree or not.</p>