Times poll: 75% blame Bush’s policies for deterioriating economy

[minnie61650]

First, Did you really mean what I bolded? Or is that a typo? If it's a typo, proofread. .

Sorry it was a typo.
Sometimes even when I proofread I miss the typo.

 

[minnie61650]

Well, admission is the first step.

So sorry. It was a typo.
I left a very important word out. (the word not).
Please see my explanation and appology in the above post.

 

[minnie61650]

Is your first sentence a typo? Just wondering-didn't see it corrected.
.

Yes it was a typo.

I was out.
I just saw it and correct it.

Thanks for catching my error.

 

[Mikelly1221]

It was a typo. I have typo. I have dylexia and often will leave a letter out of a word or a word out of a sentence and even when I proof read I sometimes miss it and minutes, hours, days later when I read the sentence That is when I see my my error.

Thanks for catching my miistake.
I apologize to all who read my error.

That was not my intention.

Thanks for clarifying. I did think it was a typo but wanted to make sure.

Let me tell you, I am the world's worst typer, so I can sympathize!

 

[minnie61650]

Thanks for clarifying. I did think it was a typo but wanted to make sure.

Let me tell you, I am the world's worst typer, so I can sympathize!

Thanks for understanding.

You are very kind.

 

[mefordis]

You should have done some Googling before writing this. For your reading pleasure:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html

Really? Have you ever studied economics??

The reason we pulled out of the depression was because of war. War creates jobs. Weapons manufacturers, technology manufacturers, all have business because of contracts through the US Government. Where do you think all the money we spend on war goes?

Not to mention all the jobs that are created within the military while at war.

Also, while over there, our men and women have to be fed, clothed, etc. All those things are creating contracts with AMERICAN companies. Directly helping the American economy.

 

[minnie61650]

You should have done some Googling before writing this. For your reading pleasure:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html

Thank you for the link. I think this paragraph sums it up quite well:

Economists used to think that wars were good for the economy, a notion born out of memories of how the massive spending of World War II helped bring the United States and the world out of the Great Depression. But we now know far better ways to stimulate an economy -- ways that quickly improve citizens' well-being and lay the foundations for future growth. But money spent paying Nepalese workers in Iraq (or even Iraqi ones) doesn't stimulate the U.S. economy the way that money spent at home would -- and it certainly doesn't provide the basis for long-term growth the way investments in research, education or infrastructure would.

 

[disney1990]

Did President Bush's policies lead us into this recession?

I'm not a Bush fan, but I certainly don't put all the blame on him for the economic fallout.

 

[minnie61650]

I'm not a Bush fan, but I certainly don't put all the blame on him for the economic fallout.

For the record I would never put all the blame on President Bush either.

I do think he may have missed a few important clues or did not know how serious things were until it was almost too late but there are plenty of people and businesses, not the least being the finanical instutions, real estate companies, credit card companies, etc. who also added to this crisis.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[onelilspark]

You should have done some Googling before writing this. For your reading pleasure:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html

That "article" was so biased I can't take it seriously. Really, when an article is written as such:

Bush and Congress cut taxes, especially on the rich...

You can't tell me that's not biased. Find something that isn't so biased, and I might be able to take it seriously. Until then. I stand by my statements that wars help the economy.

 

[Charade]

I was NOT
trying to bash President Bush.

I was trying to refresh my memory on steps that President Bush used to try to avert the deline of our economy when I happened upon the Times poll.

In 2003 President Bush passed the Jobs Growth Tax Relief.

Most of us got a tax cut of $289 for the year.

The top 1% (those making over $1 million) recieved a tax credit of $30,000 each.

In 2008 most of you wh omade under $100,000 recieved a stim check up to $600 each , $1,200 a couple with an extra $300 for each child .

Of then after stating our economy was strong all of a sudden with no warning from the Bush adminstration it was critical that we bail the banks out because they were failing !

You forgot to mention the marginal tax rate reductions.


Prior to the Bush tax cuts, the marginal tax rates were, 15, 28, 31, 36, and 39.6%, depending on your income, familial status and other matters. After the Bush tax cuts, those margins were cut to 10, 15, 25, and 33%. Furthermore, the President eliminated the inheritance tax, increased certain child tax credits, and cut other minor taxes. In other words, if you paid anything in federal income taxes, your income tax rate went down. In fact, on a percentage basis, the poorer folks got a much bigger cut than the wealthy (from 15% to 10% compared to 39 to 33).

 

[Charade]

How does the war in Iraq help the US economy???????

Government spending going to companies that supplies to the military.

 

[Charade]

Have you ever studied economics? War destroys wealth, it does not create it. You're arguing the fallacy of the broken window.

Does that also mean that massive (non-war) government spending destroys wealth?

 

[AndyLL]

In fact, on a percentage basis, the poorer folks got a much bigger cut than the wealthy (from 15% to 10% compared to 39 to 33).[/b]

It's math like that which shows how qualified Republicans are to talk about the economy.

BTW it was the huge Cap Gains/Div cuts that gave the wealthy a huge % drop in effective tax rate paid.

 

[Teejay32]

I think the poll director could have made an excellent case for increased hardship for many Americans, and/or rising public pessimism due to gas prices, or even dwindling support for Bush across America...but that's not the point of the article, it's: "75% blame Bush’s policies for deterioriating economy". If there's one thing I did not find supported in the article, it is that 75% blame Bush’s policies for the deterioriating economy. Furthermore, an honest person, when reporting unfavorably about "Bush's policies", might have wanted to mention an actual Bush policy.

So off the top of my head I'm thinking that this is the kind of agenda-driven, dumbed-down, manufactured news that some of us have been griping about for years.

 

[Charade]

It's math like that which shows how qualified Republicans are to talk about the economy.

BTW it was the huge Cap Gains/Div cuts that gave the wealthy a huge % drop in effective tax rate paid.

Huh? Dropping from 15 to 10 is a bigger cut than 39 to 33.

And in reality, those in the lower bracket probably had a ZERO effective tax rate. And it a lot of cases, they when negative with EITC.

So your point would be???

 

[AndyLL]

Huh? Dropping from 15 to 10 is a bigger cut than 39 to 33.

So your point would be???

My point is that a 6% rate reduction is bigger then a 5% reduction.

Maybe the education funding should not have been cut in the final bill

You conveniently ignored the huge cap gains/div cuts also.

 

[Charade]

My point is that a 6% rate reduction is bigger then a 5% reduction.

Maybe the education funding should not have been cut in the final bill

You conveniently ignored the huge cap gains/div cuts also.

Well, you could look at it that way but the effect is much different.

Going from 15 to 10 is a 33 percent reduction. Going from 39 to 33 is 11 percent reduction. I think that's how most people would look at it.

And I didn't ignore it the cap gains/div cuts. "Rich" people still pay the lion's share of the tax burden.

 

[AndyLL]

Well, you could look at it that way but the effect is much different.

Going from 15 to 10 is a 33 percent reduction. Going from 39 to 33 is 11 percent reduction. I think that's how most people would look at it.

%s of %s don't make much sense. I wouldn't want you negotiating wage increases for me. I think most people would realize that 6% of a number is higher amount then 5% of a number.

And of course you understand our tax code well enough that you realize that the top brackets also receive the tax cuts of the lower brackets?

And I didn't ignore it the cap gains/div cuts. "Rich" people still pay the lion's share of the tax burden.

I'll let you in on a little secret. Rich people pay the lion's share of the tax burden because they have the lion's share of the money. It has nothing to do with tax brackets

I could be paying a 99% tax rate and bill gates could have a 1% tax rate and he's still paying the lions share of taxes.

 

[Sherwin]

Proof?

I don't necessarily doubt what you're saying, except your saying so without any real reason to believe it, doesn't make any sense.

You don't need proof. Economic recessions come years in the making. It's simple. The anomaly that caused this mess was around way longer before Bush was even governor. You can't normally point your finger at someone or something, unless it's Paul Volcker of the early 80s...