BF2S Forums oops: The rich are paying the most taxes under Bush (EVER)

sergeriver wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

• Real GDP grew at a strong 4.9 percent annual rate in the third quarter of 2007.  The economy has now experienced six years of uninterrupted growth, averaging 2.8 percent a year since 2001.   
• Real after-tax per capita personal income has risen by 12 percent – an average of more than $3,600 per person – since President Bush took office.   
• Real wages have risen by 3.6 percent during this Administration.   
• Over the course of this Administration, productivity growth has averaged 2.6 percent per year.  This growth is well above average productivity growth in the 1990s, 1980s, and 1970s.   
• The Federal budget deficit is down to 1.2 percent of GDP (in FY07), well below the 40-year average.  Economic growth contributed to a 6.7 percent rise in tax receipts in FY07, following an increase of 11.8 percent in FY06.   
• U.S. exports in September 2007 were 13.6 percent higher than exports in September 2006.

While fighting two wars, corporate scandals, and major hurricanes mind you.

In 2005 the public debt was 64.7% of GDP According to the CIA's World Factbook, this meant that the U.S. public debt was the 35th largest in the world by percentage of GDP.

The US trade deficit hit a record high of 763.6 billion dollars in 2006, up from 716.7 billion dollars in 2005.

While fighting two wars, corporate scandals, and major hurricanes mind you.

usmarine2005 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

I knew the Clinton fanboi would come out eventually.

Did I mention Clinton?  Shut up Hillary.

Oh you were about to and you know it.

FEOS wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I thought Real GDP took inflation into account.

Even if it doesn't, the Real GDP growth in the summary table is still greater than the inflation rate for all years through 2012...again, positive growth. Just not robust positive growth.

The Economist thinks the risk of a recession is now seen at 40%.  That's a worrying data.  Maybe it won't happen, but you must concede that Bush didn't handle the economy that well as some people want it to appear.

That means that the Economist sees the risk of two consecutive quarters of negative growth to be 40% at some point in the future. That does not mean that the economy is not growing, or is currently in a negative growth situation.

Yes, it's worrying that one source considers the risk of a recession to be 40%. But that also means that they consider the chances of not having a recession to be 60%...so odds are, according to the one source, that there won't be a recession.

I think people need to concede that this administration didn't handle the economy as poorly as some people want it to appear. The biggest problem we have right now is the housing market...which was driven by market forces, not governmental policy. I'm in total agreement with Kmarion on that one.

usmarine2005 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Now you read minds?

No, just monitor trends.

sergeriver wrote:

The economy of the US growing 1%?  That's lame.  He fucked things up, cutting taxes, and of course, fighting his little war on terror.

@Kmarion I don't have a source for this but maybe you can confirm or deny it.  Is it true that most jobs created during Bush presidency were created in the public administration, while there was a small loss in the private field?  I'm not sure of that, I'm just answering.

Phrozenbot wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Phrozenbot wrote:

The housing market was created with the help of Alan Greenspan keeping interest rates low.

Actually, that's not quite right. The housing market issue was created with ARMs, which Greenspan advised against, if memory serves. Those people with fixed-rate mortgages at the rates that the Fed set when Greenspan was chair aren't the ones defaulting. It's the mortgages that brought marginally-qualified buyers in with low entry rates, then jacked them up with the increased interest rates (via ARMs) that were put in place after Greenspan left.

He claimed that real-estate couldn't experience a bubble, and did the Fed warn about banks and their lending standards? He's kept interest rates too low for too long, am I wrong? Either way it was a disaster waiting to happen.

sergeriver wrote:

FEOS wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

The economy of the US growing 1%?  That's lame.  He fucked things up, cutting taxes, and of course, fighting his little war on terror.

@Kmarion I don't have a source for this but maybe you can confirm or deny it.  Is it true that most jobs created during Bush presidency were created in the public administration, while there was a small loss in the private field?  I'm not sure of that, I'm just answering.

1% growth is still positive growth, whether you like it or not. I'm not saying he's been a brilliant President...all I'm saying is that not everything he touches turns to shit, either.

Cutting taxes resulted in increased federal revenue. How can that possibly be interpreted as "fucking up"?

Well, if you take a look at the deficit, you'll understand that you can't cut taxes and fight a war at the same time.

FEOS wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

The economy of the US growing 1%?  That's lame.  He fucked things up, cutting taxes, and of course, fighting his little war on terror.

@Kmarion I don't have a source for this but maybe you can confirm or deny it.  Is it true that most jobs created during Bush presidency were created in the public administration, while there was a small loss in the private field?  I'm not sure of that, I'm just answering.

1% growth is still positive growth, whether you like it or not. I'm not saying he's been a brilliant President...all I'm saying is that not everything he touches turns to shit, either.

Cutting taxes resulted in increased federal revenue. How can that possibly be interpreted as "fucking up"?

FEOS wrote:

Phrozenbot wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Actually, that's not quite right. The housing market issue was created with ARMs, which Greenspan advised against, if memory serves. Those people with fixed-rate mortgages at the rates that the Fed set when Greenspan was chair aren't the ones defaulting. It's the mortgages that brought marginally-qualified buyers in with low entry rates, then jacked them up with the increased interest rates (via ARMs) that were put in place after Greenspan left.

He claimed that real-estate couldn't experience a bubble, and did the Fed warn about banks and their lending standards? He's kept interest rates too low for too long, am I wrong? Either way it was a disaster waiting to happen.

1994
Not Greenspan, but a warning none the less (2000)
2001: Not Greenspan, but a FRB Governor

But is it really the FRB's job to tell financial institutions who they can and can't lend money to? No, it's not. The Fed sets inter-bank loan rates, which those banks then use to set their lending rates to consumers. Who those banks choose to lend to--outside of discriminatory practices--is really none of the government's concern.

Kmarion wrote:

An editorial from the WSJ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119786208643933077.html
Per the IRS

Every Democrat running for President wants to raise taxes on "the rich," but they will have to do something miraculous to outtax President Bush. Based on the latest available tax data, no Administration in modern history has done more to pry tax revenue from the wealthy.

Phrozenbot wrote:

Well you are right (and thank you for those links I'm reading them now +1), but the system has lead to people taking loans beyond their means. I guess this is where personal responsibility takes more of a role: don't take loans you can't afford, no matter how attractive those low interest rates may be. But if the Fed warns banks, they shouldn't expect to get bailed out when they take huge loses.

But Citigroup got cash a infusion from Abu Dhab. It has helped the dollar but I think it was too little too late. But is it right that someone like Citigroup gets bailed out, but not the average Joe?