I think credit should be given to Bush and his team of economic advisors. Because of his two tax cuts and various other policies he has been able to turn around the recession that gripped america 3 years ago.

The two tax cuts have shown to do exactly what they intended which was to give people there money back so they could spend and restart the economy. The Consumer Spending index has shown that over the last year there has been a steady increase.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...ec_fi/economy_8

this consumer index gives much needed security to stock market investors. It has improved their confidence and thus help create a strong bull market

quote:

Since the lows in mid March, the Standard and Poor's index of the top five hundred firms has risen almost 30%. Meanwhile the Nasdaq index of leading hi-tech shares has gained a huge 50% after three years of big stock market falls. It seems investors are back buying America again. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3119804.stm

This all talleys and can be concluded in the overall growth rate of the US's GDP. The US has had positive growth in the past two years.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...c_fi/economy_28

indications show the economy is on a health rebound course.

with all that said the economic policies that bother me about Bush are his fiscal responsibilites. He seems like he has no control of the budget and has already amassed an incredible debt. it is true that war and tax cut have burdened the budget but this is justifiable, however i still feel that there has been a lot of over spending on needless national programs and subsidies.

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

I think a lot of the needless spending can be attributed to congressmen who are unwilling to ratchet in their own careless spending. I admit that Bush has spent A LOT of money, however I believe that it has been mostly on big ticket items that have merit. The lionshare of the frivolous spending always occurs in congress. They are the ones who approve spending, and they are the spenders who always manage to squander their tax receipts.

Izzy, have you listened to the news lately??? .. Poverty is crambling America now, if you didnt know.. its up tp 43 million people, whom are now in poverty lebel, and consumer spending is once again falling to what it was prior to the sudden rise of consumer spending. Therefore, knowing that the poverty level has rise to such levels, among the spendings, or better said, money that the bush administration is now asking, among other spendings, the economy is no good. Ive heard some analysts today talking about the economy ( on the NPR radio ) .. and said that the unempleyment is the worst in decades.. and the sign of the economy improving its not even the tip of the iceberg. There are many things currently happening that will keep the economy from going up. The stocks are up and down, up up and down down down down down down.. no good. Even if lets say, tehre was a small chance that Bush could justify the economy in improving, the poverty levels will keep anything from that happening.

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)

Poverty rate:

12.1% currently or 34.6 million people that is for 2002 - the last time the Census burea did estimates for poverty (http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentuck...ess/6868055.htm).

Still Bush's wasn't an economic plan to "stop poverty" it was to increase consumer spending, and it did achieve that. So I think prompts to him.

As a supported of Keynsian economy, I support the large budget deficit in periods of recision, and commend Bush for his unpopular tax cut (I think I could have done a better tax cut, but still thats a boat load of money coming back to consumers in fairly small and un inflation sparking distributions).

The only other angel that might have been worth looking the one that democrates are now touting is "Job creation" - but I don't exactly know what that means to be honest. Isn't the government creating jobs by supporting a large military....?

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Poverty rate: 12.1% currently or 34.6 million people that is for 2002 - the last time the Census burea did estimates for poverty (http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentuck...ess/6868055.htm). Still Bush's wasn't an economic plan to "stop poverty" it was to increase consumer spending, and it did achieve that. So I think prompts to him. As a supported of Keynsian economy, I support the large budget deficit in periods of recision, and commend Bush for his unpopular tax cut (I think I could have done a better tax cut, but still thats a boat load of money coming back to consumers in fairly small and un inflation sparking distributions). The only other angel that might have been worth looking the one that democrates are now touting is "Job creation" - but I don't exactly know what that means to be honest. Isn't the government creating jobs by supporting a large military....?

Although Im in the middle of a stressfull studying process for my Social Environment class.. I just cant handle not replying to you back . I dont know why are those figures of consumer spendings so encouraging, really. First of all, id like to point out that Bush's tax cut went back to the more wealthy families.. more to those with an income of 200,000 and up, and those under it may have gotten some 200-300 dollar checks, and the middle class, well, lets say the upper middle class. My uncle who gets around 100,000 recieved a miserable check.. it was as if he was getting back a tip. But back to topic. I found this helpfull, up-to-date links.

CONSUMER CONFIDENCE DROPS.
http://money.cnn.com/2003/09/30/new...sumer/index.htm



MORE MILLIONAIRES-MORE POORS.
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/art...930104109990001

Among other things
*More americans without Health insurances, the highest in a decade.( Realted to economy ). 43.6 million lacked it in 2002
*Jobs- More than 13 million Americans are out of work.
*Consumer Confidence: The index has plummeted.

Really, I dont praise he's tax cut at-all. States are getting higher deficit, so is this country. This to Bush really on how bad he's doing with the economy.

in the ass..

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX *Jobs- More than 13 million Americans are out of work.

At the worst point it was the worst unemployment rate since Hoover :P

Don't let anybody fool you. The current state of the economy is that we are in a jobless recovery. Meaning that although we are making significant marked improvements in economic performance, the labor market is still stagnant. The manufacturing sector has been expanding consistently, the ISM index has been above 50 for several months, durable goods orders have been relatively buoyant, consumer spending has been superb (aided by the tax cuts which increased personal income by .2%). Consumer spending and GDP are HUGE indicators of economic performance, far more than consumer confidence. Consumer confidence always has wide variability and in the past even when consumer confidence has been low, consumer spending still rose despite a drop in confidence. Anyway I have all of the last month’s primary indicators if anybody wants the complete list to form their own opinions.

That being said, does this mean that everything is fine and dandy? Absolutely not, a jobless recovery does not have sustained growth. If unemployment remains high, than the huge gains in consumer spending will not sustain itself. Eventually the layoffs will drive down personal income, drive down consumer spending, and will have a negative impact on GDP. Ironically enough, one of the reasons for the slump in manufacturing jobs has been the dramatic increase in productivity. Since the second quarter of 2001, productivity has grown by 3.1% a year. Since companies can now produce more with fewer workers, this has partly influenced the stubborn lack of growth in payrolls.

quote:

At the worst point it was the worst unemployment rate since Hoover :P

Don't know where you got that data from.

http://www.businessweek.com/@@CHrnY...51050_mz007.htm

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Don't know where you got that data from. http://www.businessweek.com/@@CHrnY...51050_mz007.htm

Its real interesting this jobless thing.

Because in one way I think the recession has been a VERY good thing for America - as you indicated the efficiency rates have increased dramatically. I believe this is always true, when you are big and fat you don't have to do much... but when your starving you'll learn to hunt very quick. I think the recession has exposed corruption (the scandals would not have been uncovered if it wasn't for the crunch), and increased efficieny in the workplace (less ppl making more stuff).

Now once these ppl who are out of work find jobs it will be an incredible economy.... But I'm not for government created jobs, I think this subsudiy is silly and not self-sustaining either. Then again, this econcomy could use some jobs.

Also it is not nescessary as you imply that less ppl out of jobs mean income levels will go down - as those that are working are much more efficient. What this does mean however is that it will injure the middle class, and create wider disparity between poor and rich. And one thing I really liked about the US is the fact that everyone is in the middle-class.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Also it is not nescessary as you imply that less ppl out of jobs mean income levels will go down - as those that are working are much more efficient. What this does mean however is that it will injure the middle class, and create wider disparity between poor and rich. And one thing I really liked about the US is the fact that everyone is in the middle-class.

Well I think that disposable personal income is defined as total personal income less personal tax and nontax payments. It does not discriminate between income of those unemployed as those who are employed. Therefore if more workers become unemployed or the longer workers remain unemployed, then the aggregate personal income will go down. Additionally, just because a worker is more productive, it does not necessarily mean they are being compensated for their increased productivity .

One thing I can say for certain however, the labor market WILL not remain stagnant for very much longer. There is going to be an impending job boom starting NO later than 2011. Anyone wanna guess why?

___________________
Retro ...

Does it have something to do with WWIII?

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Does it have something to do with WWIII?

No ... 2 more guesses. You're kind of on track with it having something to do with a past war.

___________________
Retro ...

2 guess ouch.

The current line I'm thinking is by past-war you probably mean Iraq, and then either you don't see Bush in office by 2011 but a democrate instead (in which case this was a cheap political joke), or that you actually think the mid-east will produce jobs for the US ---- ahh yes cheap oil, of course!
Cheap oil should always spurs growth (and employment?)