Economists see 'booming economy'

TooManyWheels · Mar 30, 2004

PRRPILL - You post is the only accusation I have ever seen that Bush has any interest in appeasing liberals. He has gone to great lengths to say that he doesn't care what anyone thinks, especially liberals (the only thing important is "his gut"), and we all know the conservative derision for "appeasement" (another new code word designed to attack liberals).

So I find great difficulty is believing your post. If you have anything to remotely substantiate your assertion I would be very interested in knowing what it is.

GROUCHO MARX · Mar 30, 2004

"Hey, I've listened to Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Couture... have you ever listened to NPR? Not that NPR leans even remotely as far left and the others lean right."

------------------------------------------------------------------

Big difference is that NPR is publicly funded, the others are not. To compare the two identifies the problem.

Gary Allan · Mar 30, 2004

quote:

Tax cuts work and I am on board with this administrations economic policies more so then Kerry's.

Sure and if you buy a car on your credit card and worry about paying it later ..you'll feel good until it comes to pay for it.

quote:

as long as Bush stops spending like a liberal.

They both spend like shop til you drop junkies. Liberals tax and spend ..Republicans borrow and spend. Ronnie did it ...GW is doing it.

Tax cuts are the biggest ignorant scam that a politician can pull on the public. It's a carrot dangled in front of you.

Does it accellerate the economic recovery? Maybe ..but at what cost in the future? The economy has a natural ebb and flow to it. We don't regulate our trade balance like some place like Holland. They don't have these sinusoidal economic ocillations. When we get too bloated and spend too much there has to be a "technical correction" and a recession moves in.

This stuff is going to be ongoing forever and you just can't give away of bunch of money that the goverment needs to pay bills with to make a very temporary fix that would have occurred on its own later.

The ENTIRE world operates on our CREDIT capacity. If we're at 6% unemployment ..we're in a recession ..if we're at 5% unemployment we're expanding. The 9X% still spends virtually 100% of their weekly income every week. The only REAL difference is how much debt the consuming public is willing to take on in new home purchases and automobile purchases (larger ticket items).

Once our "consumer debt capacity" is reached ...the fuel that feeds the expanding economy stops. New home construction stops auto purchases are stalled and the purchases of other consumer goods is diminished because too many people are now PAYING for goods they already have.

I could go on ..but borrow and spend economics (we used to call it Reaganomics) is just a fools gold ploy to sucker you into accepting a big lie by giving you a temporary small truth.

jason07-1zzfe · Mar 30, 2004

Gary make up your mind if want to knock cutting taxes or borrow and spend. There is a difference. Of course borrow and spend is stupid. Lowering taxes is not necessarily a bad thing as long as spending is lower. Of course you will not see either of the two major parties actually follow through with this. I am in favor of lowering taxes, so guess what else I am in favor of...

keith · Mar 30, 2004

I never did see the good economic forecast news on ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/MSNBC. Plenty of coverage about $1.80/gallon gas prices, but no mention of inflation adjusted $2.80/gallon gas in 1980's. Just an oversight I guess, LOL.

Meanwhile, Bush approves Condi Rice to provide already known public testimony before irrelevant committee in Congress and that gets 24 hour news coverage. Go figure.

Keith.

Gary Allan · Mar 30, 2004

quote:

Asinine :"And what do you mean by "NPR is publicly funded?" They sure as **** don't get tax dollars. "

__________________________________________________________

Yes they do.

It's not funded fully by tax $$$ ...but, yes, public $$$ fund this "alternative point of view" on the world.

It's quite nice for the government to fund an outlet that may not agree with what it does.

Be careful how "totalitarian" you want your government to be ...you may one day get your wish.

needtoknow · Mar 31, 2004

Originally posted by keith:
[QB] I never did see the good economic forecast news on ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/MSNBC. Plenty of coverage about $1.80/gallon gas prices, but no mention of inflation adjusted $2.80/gallon gas in 1980's. Just an oversight I guess, LOL.

Not sure I get the point, higher gas prices OK, we can afford it compared to 1980's, but higher gas prices due to taxes to promote conservation and provide money for roads, etc. and we're all doomed???

[ March 31, 2004, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: needtoknow ]

Asinine · Mar 31, 2004

Bull. NPR gets funds from private entities, private contributions, etc. They DO NOT get tax dollars.

XS650 · Mar 31, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by Asinine:
Bull. NPR gets funds from private entities, private contributions, etc. They DO NOT get tax dollars.

quote:

Public TV Funding
Public TV's total national, regional and local revenue in FY00 totaled $1.6 billion, according to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). Leading sources of revenue: members (23.5%); state governments (18.3%); CPB and federal grants/contracts (16.4%); businesses (16.1%); state colleges and universities (6.5%); and foundations (5.5%).

http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/aboutpbs_corp.html

JohnnyO · Mar 31, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by Gary Allan:
It's quite nice for the government to fund an outlet that may not agree with what it does.

All depends who is in the White House.

As far as tax cuts, a cut in the tax rate does not necessarily mean a cut in tax receipts. Reagan's tax cuts for example stimulated the economy such that the Federal tax receipts tripled between 1980 and 1990. Each person contributes a smaller piece of a growing pie. Note that the economy under Clinton really took off when the capital gains tax rate was cut. Problem was that the govt still spent more than what came in and you can lay blame at the feet of both parties there.
I can illustrate the opposite here in Pittsburgh, where high taxes, property taxes especially, are forcing people to move away. Therefore, taxes go up even more on the people left since there are less of them to share the load.

[ March 31, 2004, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: JohnnyO ]

TC · Mar 31, 2004

"Jobless Rates Rise in Key Election States" Yahoo News
"WASHINGTON - Unemployment rates increased in nine of the 17 battleground states that could decide the 2004 presidential election, with Missouri and Arkansas showing the biggest increases last month, the Labor Department said Wednesday. The department's state-by-state survey showed weak job growth in many parts of the country."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...=/ap/20040331/ap_on_el_pr/unemployment_states

So, is this the "booming economy" being talked about? I'd hate to see what a "sucky" economy looks like!

JohnnyO · Mar 31, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by TC:
I'd hate to see what a "sucky" economy looks like!

Move here, it's sucked for over 20 years. One example is that there are not more people here every year, there are less (possibly a foreign concept to those in CA and the Sunbelt). On the upside there is no overcrowding in the schools, quite literally we close them and turn them into assisted-living places for the elderly. Also everyone speaks English because the immigrants are smart enough to go where the jobs are, and it ain't here.

ALS · Mar 31, 2004

Like Johnny O said about Pittsburgh one problem they ran so many people out of the city that make any real money there isn't enough money to pay the bills. Try 50% of the population fled in the last 34 years because of the games and taxes.
Now they're talking about disolving the city and rolling it into the County. They're between a rock and a hard place when it comes to finding money. So they figure they will dump all the cities bills on the county residents and planning for new unregulated spending financed through the county residents through much higher taxes. The Democrat that just got elected into the County Exec Job is Begging Harrisburg for $100 million in spending money. This $100 million is to create "make work" projects for the the Union members who supported him. So instead of 10K county residents running out of the county from the taxes there will be 20K residents a year fleeing the county if this scam ever goes through. Gee they lost 40% of the population in the county since 1970 lets run the rest out.

GROUCHO MARX · Mar 31, 2004

Asinine :"And what do you mean by "NPR is publicly funded?" They sure as **** don't get tax dollars. "

__________________________________________________________

Yes they do.

needtoknow · Mar 31, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by JohnnyO:
Reagan's tax cuts for example stimulated the economy such that the Federal tax receipts tripled between 1980 and 1990. Each person contributes a smaller piece of a growing pie. Note that the economy under Clinton really took off when the capital gains tax rate was cut. Problem was that the govt still spent more than what came in and you can lay blame at the feet of both parties there.
I can illustrate the opposite here in Pittsburgh, where high taxes, property taxes especially, are forcing people to move away. Therefore, taxes go up even more on the people left since there are less of them to share the load. [/QB]

JohnnyO, don't think Reagans success was just due to tax cuts. Seems he did the old borrow and spend thing as well and ballooned the deficit, which helped to fuel the economy. Thing was HW Bush had to eat his words "NO NEW TAXES" when he found out what a terrible state the country's finances were in. Then we had the crash of 1987 when the gravy train stopped. Clinton also changed tax policy for the wealthy. If he spent more than was coming in how come we ran a surplus under his watch, which is now gone under GW Bush's tax cuts and borrow and spend? Deja Vu all over again?
As for Pittsburg, I'm interested in how houses are selling if people are leaving due to taxes and therefore there should be a lot of vacant houses, or at least ones priced real cheap? Doesn't Pitts. tax based on market value? High taxes can cut property values which leads to less tax revenue, round and round.

ALS · Apr 1, 2004

Well two weeks ago there was an article in the Sunday Paper showing how 55 out of 130 communities
in the county property values are dropping due to the high taxes. If you listen to the elected idiots everything is great. Well let see one of my employees and her husband have picked up 3 houses for section 8 rentals. The first is a 3500 sqft 3 story 4 bed 2 bath with a one car garage.
It needed about 20K in improvements. Cost $1,000
They picked up 2 homes Brick 2 story 3bed 1 1/2 bath in a inter city neighborhood for $3,500.
One just needed cleaned up and the other probably needs 20K to 25K in renovations. I'd say they are about 1500 to 1600 sqft homes. What is selling is the kept up homes. The junk is launguishing on the market. If it wasn't for the 6% money most of these houses that are selling wouldn't. The average buyer has no idea how much real estate is really on the market. Since only 1 out of every 4 or 5 houses on the market has a sign in the yard. One of my employees sold her house in the city last year. Because she found out that three homes on her street she thought they had sold had really been turned into rental properties. She and her husband sold the house as fast as they could. They built a new home in the county south of Pittsburgh. About 1 mile north of their house my general manager built a new home. 79 houses in the plan 77 are own by past residents of the county Pittsburgh resides. 60 of the home owners were originally city residents. They just didn't move out of the city they moved out the county.
The suburbs outside the city are doing pretty well for home sales. But as I call it this cancer of falling property values is slowly moving outward from the city. Neighborhoods in the city that were nice places to live 15 years ago are turning into crime ridden S-holes.
One couple I know bought a house for $60K in 1995. It's been for sale for two years and they can't get an offer over $54K.
New concrete drive, has one car separate garage new concete steps and walk, Newly installed whole house A/C, new windows, appliances, and a new roof, finished basement & attic, 3 bd 1.5 bath house around 1600 sqft. It's a nice brick house with a brick porch. The owners want out of the city and can't find a buyer that wants to live in the city.

JohnnyO · Apr 1, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by needtoknow:
JohnnyO, don't think Reagans success was just due to tax cuts. Seems he did the old borrow and spend thing as well and ballooned the deficit, which helped to fuel the economy. Thing was HW Bush had to eat his words "NO NEW TAXES" when he found out what a terrible state the country's finances were in.

I don't basically disagree. Just that (generally speaking) the Republicans will overspend on defense and the Dems will overspend on social programs and redistributing the wealth. Choose your poison. Further, when G. Bush I allowed taxes to go up it slowed the economy, leading to his defeat in 1992, much to the delight of the Dems who got both their tax increase AND Bush I out of office.

quote:

Originally posted by needtoknow:
As for Pittsburg, I'm interested in how houses are selling if people are leaving due to taxes and therefore there should be a lot of vacant houses, or at least ones priced real cheap? Doesn't Pitts. tax based on market value? High taxes can cut property values which leads to less tax revenue, round and round.

Housing market is so-so. Median value of a house as of 2000 is $84,200 (source: www.ruralpa.org) although you can buy something very nice for less. Thing is, who wants to buy one? A lot of what gets bought is turned into rentals and/or Section 8. Property tax is based on market value, however that is simply the base value from which the millage (tax rate) is taken off of. If value goes down, the city, county, and school boards can just raise the millage rate. Income tax won't raise a lot of revenue because within the city proper (I live in a neighboring county BTW, always have) there aren't really a lot of people who LIVE there. There isn't a lot of income to tax really. Therefore, they rely on the property tax from which all of the non-profit hospitals and universities are exempt, about 40% of all property, leaving a high tax burden on business and the few residents, many elderly and on fixed incomes, that are left. The housing supply will increase rapidly very soon, futher driving down the price. Almost 18% of our population is over age 65 and won't be around much longer and there are few younger folks in the pipeline. The high school I went to graduates less than half as many as when I graduated in 1978. Births minus deaths from 2000-2002 is a minus 1498. FYI, the whole place has been run exclusively by Dems since the 1930's.
The mayor, who is generally thought to be an idiot by people of both parties, did astutely observe last week that we have a 19th century industrial tax system in the 21st century where there is no industry.

*EDIT* I got sidetracked at work and I had most of this already typed and didn't even see ALS post.

[ April 01, 2004, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: JohnnyO ]

Asinine · Apr 1, 2004

News flash:

apples != oranges.
PBS != NPR.

"NPR (National Public Radio) is a private, self-supporting nonprofit media company with hundreds of independent radio stations as members. NPR receives no direct federal funding for general support."

keith · Apr 1, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by needtoknow:
... Clinton also changed tax policy for the wealthy. If he spent more than was coming in how come we ran a surplus under his watch ...

Nope, no surplus, not at any time during the Clinton administration. This is the biggest lie of the 1990's.

US debt

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00

Look long and hard at those numbers. The debt increases every year of the Clinton administration.

The only way to compute a "surplus" is to ignore the cost of debt service. That is like you or I saying that we are running a surplus, if we ignore our mortgage interest payments!

Both sides of Congress are dishonest on this issue. It served both well to talk up the economy in the mid to late 1990's.

Keith.

Shannow · Apr 1, 2004

Keith,
that's a good post, and shows how we are continually being conned with respect to "balancing the budget".

It's precisely the same down here, with politicians spruking about their "balanced budget", and surpluses, when they haven't even started buying the place back.

Economists see 'booming economy'

Similar threads