How much will Bush save you?
 

http://www.smartmoney.com/tax/filing...ory=bushtaxcut

Interested in results since I always see so much Bush support here.

Bush Save Me money? :eek7 Anytime their is a republican in office the economy goes to shit. So you think a tax cut is going to save me money? :1orglaugh

bummer, they don't include the $50,000 in lawyers fees for defending my ass if they decide to prosecute me for obscenity :throwup

LOL, still waking up here, and I read "How much will Bush shave you. Which is probably closer to the mark :)

EXACTLY...I agree 100% .....

So higher unemployment and the war were plans to save you paying taxes.

Clever guy that Mr Bush why didn't anyone else think of it?

$0

I make less than $10,000 a year

:Graucho

You have a very short memory or maybe no grasp of history!

We have to pay taxes on porn money? :eek7

ummm- there's no need for unemployment when there's a war on. Just ask theking - they need lots more speedbumps

:1orglaugh

Yeah those Regaonomics worked wonders didn't they

I say we bring back Clinton for a another round.

Tech goes back up, Market off the scale and the preisdent only is concerned about getting a blowjob, not taking over the world.

Tax cuts - one of the last resorts for a goverment who badly needs to buy back some popularity. Sad thing is that the majority of the voting public are dumb enough to fall for it.

Sure you do..sure you do..:winkwink:

As illogical as it sounds...
Democrats are usually good for the market
Republicans are usually good for business

As soon as I heard a few of Gores campaign speeches
I got myself the hell out the market and into municipals
and bond funds (saving myself a hell of a beating).

As for the question...

with the tax breaks and accelerated depreciation on
purchased business assets, around $30,000 through
2005 and it could be alot more. With the future $100,000
limit on single year depreciation I may stock up on
certain items to offset even more income.

I don't especially agree with GWs foreign policy...
but he's going to save me a nice piece of change
in the short term (through 2005).
I guess we'll have to wait and see what congress does
after that...

Bob

Who asked you Bob?

Okay then. Explain it to the rest of us. What do you know that everyone here with a brain doesn't?

ask a divorced man, or any man for that matter, bush never saves you money, it costs you money. one way or another we all pay for bush.

"Yeah those Regaonomics worked wonders didn't they"


actually they did. Thats the funny thing.



Without the internet boom, the economy wouldnt be much different under Clinton. Its just a matter of philosophy. Strengthen national security and build busines vs. creating a bunch of 6 dollar an hour jobs and ignore national secuirty.

Cock off rooster.

he'll save me more then the democrats will.
Of course, dems pander to the poor.:1orglaugh

Hilarious.

I agree, even when these tax cuts will not effect the majority, they jusr hear those words "tax cut" and they assume they will be for them. These cuts will only effect a small percent of people.

I believe, I could be wrong, I heard where the President said.... "That by giving the tax cuts to the rich, they will help the less fortunate by creating more jobs".

What a crock of shit. :321GFY

:1orglaugh

Don't get me wrong...The Reagan/Bush era nearly destroyed
me financially. It took me 10 years to recover. I have
no great love for conservative policy.

Although the internet boom helped, I think the economy would
have recovered nicely even without it. The economy is based
on confidence, and after a few years of Reagan/Bush, confidence
was all used up. Clinton didn't do anything special...he was just
something new, something different. Of course... his deal with
Greenspan didn't hurt things either.

Bob

How much will Bush save you?

Well I always put some money away to pay for that bush!!!

No matter what you gotta pay for that pussy somehow, weather
it's dinner and a movie or dinks at a bar...............

The thing that people are so ignorant about though is the economy under Clinton was a total mirage.

People wan't to return to something that was built on furniture.com and accounting scandals.

I agree for the most part...price/value ratios were insane.
But still..alot of people made alot of money.
I blame GW for not helping the economy, but I don't accuse
him of hurting it...he just happened to be president when it
came down to earth and found equilibrium. Bad Luck for him.

You got that right!!!

Bob

I blame him for talking down the economy to push the first tax cut through. When a president talks down the economy people listen. Consumer confidence is huge. I also think that lack of confidence in a new administration didn't help things much during the first few months. I think if Gore had gotten in peoples perception of the economy would have been a bit more positive as they would not have had a brand new, inexperienced administration flipping everything on it's head.

wow. it takes all kinds.:thumbsup

The Keynesian response to a slow (or shrinking) economy is to cut taxes and/or raise government expenditures. This is the tried and true stimulus combination used since the depression . What else COULD one do? The opposite will obviously shrink the GDP right away.

During the depression the exact opposite was done. The economic paradigm at the time was to balance the budget so as incomes shrunk the government had to keep raising taxes. This
prolonged and deepened the depression.

We learned our lesson. Now we cut taxes and raise expenditures.

I'd say it was pretty damned good. Low unemployment and rising GDP. How could one argue with that?

Again, I generally agree with you. GWs comments on the economy
were either very foolish, or very smart. People need to realize
that GWs private interests and public agendas are not dependant
on the economy. Everything he has done, from Afghanistan to the
patriot act, has been done to expand his (read his and his peers)
power base. In this he has been hugely successful.

As for what would have happened if Gore had been elected...
I couldn't begin to guess.
We would no doubt be living in a different America.
Better?...Worse?...Who knows...

Bob

Lots of other people were getting rich. What'd you do wrong?

Really just a combination of bad luck and bad timing.
Plus I was probably blindsided by my inexperience (I was 20
at the time).

Interest rates had started a slow rise near the end of the
Carter era. They were high, but manageable. During the
Reagan transition, they spiked at near 21%.
What Reagen failed to do was get the rates under control.
Carter didn't care...he was a short timer.
As with any politician, Reagans personal interests outweighed
the general public good. His supporters included the banks
that were making huge profits from the high rates.

I was a construction subcontractor at the time, and extended
in the high 6 digits on short term credit to both finance present
and secure future jobs. As interest rates rose...future projects
were cancelled and current projects were closing down.
Over 40% of the large building contractors in the Seattle area
closed down or went bankrupt in a 9 month period. Needless
to say, no one got paid...

It took everything I had to avoid bankruptcy.
The next few years of cutting social programs (forcing large
numbers of non-workers into the job market) and Trickle-down
policies, even made it tough to find a decent job. I was lucky to
have a marketable skill. Times were tough for awhile.

Bob

20 will get you. ;-)

Interest rates were about half that when Reagan left office though. Should one judge a "presidential economic figure" by it's average, it's sum, or it's end?

For example, should Clinton get credit for balancing the budget in 1999 or should he get blamed for adding $1.6 trillion to the debt during his administration? Should Reagan be judged by the 81/82 recession or the 82% rise in GDP during his tenure (higher than Clinton's 8 years incidentally which were quite good in their own right).

Seems to me that during most four years stretches and in any eight year period one can find whatever data they wish to justify their particular political position.

Funny thing is...even with the years of experience between then
and now, I would do the same things today as I did back then.
The construction market was hot, and money flowed like water.
When you're on a rush, you don't need the nuts to bet aggressively!
But today there would definately be better damage control.

...and like any selfish human being, I can only judge a presidential
tenure by how it affects me personally. I hate to admit that I'm
not liberal enough to worry much about "The Common Good"

Bob