Bush Economy Good For Minorities

Home ownership is higher then ever for all groups of people in this nation.
Small businesses are skyrocketing in percentages for minorities, that is for all minorities.
Stock Market is doing great.
People own more "things" then ever before.
Yet Bush gets no ink and little to no air time in the leftwing/sunni media which is for the most part network news, online news, and most cable news. Look up majority share holders and see who they hire to tell their lies and tell me that there is no connection.

 

I was under the impression that you did not support Bush. He is a BIG deficit spender. whats up?

 

Just because I am not a fan of Bush doesn't mean I can not recognize where and when he is doing a great job.
That is called being objective.
Clinton got great headlines because of the economy and so should Bush.
The interesting thing thru is that Clinton left us with a tailend recession that Bush overcamed,
then Bush overcamed 911 which was a great blow to the US economy and no one said a thing.

But the bottom line is more people are not only living in their own houses but in larger houses as well then
ever before and with more extras then ever before. The bottom line is that minorities have also done better under Bush then under Clinton. The economy is doing great. Just look at the clothes people are wearing and the cars that they are driving. Never mind the houses and condo's that they are living in.

As for the Welfare class. Leftwing liberals created that and that itself went against captailism and Darwinism.

 

I believe the economy is cyclical and unless you are in office a very long time, anything you do or don't do has very little effect on the economy while you are in office. The trends that push the economy up or down are not instantaneous. They take a while to affect the economy as a whole. Neither Bush nor Clinton really have the right to stand up and take credit for the economy while they are still in office but that never seems to stop them from doing it anyway.
On the other hand, Bush was at the helm during 9/11 and does deserve full-credit for the failure as well as many others since then. His latest buck passing attempt to blame the media for the reporting the war inaccurately would be just comical if it wasn't so tradgic. Nixon tried the same thing.

 

.........that being said, using deficit spending for a tax cut for the richest 1% of the population during a war can only be called a complete lack of reason.

 

The U.S. Census Bureau figures are based on businesses started between 1997 and 2002. They only profile businesses every 5 years, and are veeeery slow to get info out. So if you want to give credit to a president, Clinton looks pretty good here.

 

Case in point to Meon's point was when Reagan and Bush II cut the marginal tax rate on the producers of this country (people that pay taxes) and what happened? Revenues coming into the US Treasury dramatically increased!?! That's what happens when you encourage more investment, capital risk, and the iintroduction of new employers. Note to liberals: You cannot have employees without employers first in the private sector. Remember, over 80% of people employed in this country are employed by small businesses:



Remember...Reagan's tax cuts did not go into effect until October of 1981. Look at what happened to the US Treasury's take after giving hard working American's money BACK to them!

When Reagan took office, the top federal tax rate was an abusive 70 percent — a rate sure to discourage entrepreneurship by unfairly confiscating well over half the earnings of creative risk-takers. Reagan left office having lowered the top rate to 28 percent. Unfortunately, it crept back up to nearly 40 percent under the George H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations as the liberals used class warfare to go after the fruits of hard work.

It wasn't just Reagan, look what JFK did?? Kennedy lowered the top rate from 90 percent to 70 percent. What happened? Tax Revenue increased!!

Moreover, the Reagan and Kennedy tax cuts made the tax system fairer by removing punitive levels of taxation based on malicious envy.

So you are right Meon...some of these polices take time as history has documented and proven.

 

The fundamental error here is the exaggeration of the importance of tax policy. INNOVATION DRIVES THIS ECONOMY TAXES ARE STRICTLY A SIDE SHOW

 

Where's your proof? I demonstrated and DOCUMENTED each time when Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush II cut marginal tax rates, reveunes increased dramatically and faster than inflation.

I could type in BOLD letters too and state, "Mother Nature helped the US economy" without any proof or historical evidence. Your statement and refute to my post is worth no more than anyother person making any insane, ridiculous comment that spills out of their head. So AGAIN...where is your proof?

This will be good folks!

 

It is self evident but let give you one example. Look at logistics and warehousing. In the past 5 years companies like Dell have saved (therefore made) 100's of billions of dollars by avoiding warehousing inventory. I do not have the figures but it is not out of line to say that this one innovation has saved Dell much more than they pay in taxes. This one innovation is really the only thing that allows Dell to exist at all since their business model is based on not warehousing invetory. Once the RFID tags go on the pallets in Walmart they will be able to trace every piece of toilet paper from the mill to the customer and it will cost them (basically) nothing. The efficiencies that this will bring will save them billions (this innovation will kick in for all retail by 2010).
But Midas, this is just one tiny innovation there are innovations in every aspect of every business that COMPLIMENT each other. Advances in artificial intellegence and robotics alone will completely transform our economy by 2015.
As I understand it you are saying that tax policy has had a bigger impact on the economy than computers over the last 15 years. Is that what you are saying, because that is an absurd point.

 

"Everything that can be invented has been invented."

-- Charles Duell, Commissioner of US Patent Office, 1899

Recent research has revealed that Charles Duell may not have said this quote, but I bring it up because you have this warped idea that innovation and invention have spured the US economy which coincidentially occured at a higher growth rate adjusted for inflation after EACH federal tax CUT. Innovation and invention makes us more productiive (i.e., items like electrical power and automobiles), but they are no way the sole reason why some economies do well and others not so good. After all, when Reagan took office...how many personal computers did people own? BTW...if you are a product of government schools, that year was 1981. 2006 minus 1981 equals 25 years ago if you have trouble reading a math word problem.

The fact of the matter is that no business (large and small) would wish to do business in a country that taxes their profits after all of the "blood, sweat & tears" at rates of 50, 60, or as high as 90% (i.e., Kennedy's term)!! Businesses that are over regulated and taxed will look elsewhere to do business. California is a perfect example. Businesses are fleeing this tax haven to escape elsewhere because liberals like YOU are reaching into their profits for MORE and MORE. Gimmee, gimmee, gimme!!

Where the hell do you work? It obviously must NOT be in the private sector because any business person will tell you that more of THEIR dollars in their hands leads to more hiring, more investment, more capital risk, and more growth. Why you think the government should handle more of OUR hard earned tax dollars instead of the individual that EARNS it is beyond all logic.

But wait, look at the person I am talking to...the person that throws around ridiculous statements like we need to abolish our military.

Take a course in Economic 101 first and get back to me when you work in the real world.

 

I am opposed to BAD tax policy and poor spending of our tax money (that is why I supported Clinton's welfare to work), but when tax dollars are well spent it is a great boost to the economy. Remember it was tax dollars that started the internet that we are using now! Look at the incredible work being done at our universities (including student loans and grants) that are tax supported. All of this helps the economy.
We all agree that bad tax policy and foolish spending hurts the economy and I would never defend those bridges to nowhere (a Republican scam) but well spent tax dollars can do things that the private sector can not.

 

So...how much MORE do you want? How much MORE should the government take from people that produce (unlike yourself)?

Remember...it is people in the private sector that drive the economy. If you work for a state university such as Meon's wife with her sacred PhD, the goal is tenure. This way, you can vote for politicians that will promise the most money re-distribution for their given government agency...it is how you vote yourself a raise.

So where do you work? Is this the reason why you suppot liberal governement programs where you can vote yourself a raise at the expense of the people in the private sector?

 

We had this conversation before and it was pointed out that most of the highjackers were in this nation when Clinton was still President and that Bush had carried over many of Clinton's appointments in the FBI and the CIA including it's heads during the first year of his administration .

As for Nixon he ran for President saying he was going to end the Vietnam War that by the way a Democratic President got us involved and then another got us deeply involved, (Kennedy and Johnson).

But lets not play party name calling here, the bottom line is that those highjackers were not democratics or republicans and the real blame should be directed towards the Saudi's who are the biggest pushers of Islamic Jihad.

 

I'm not making excuses for either party and I won't credit them when it isn't due credit. When you take the reins of power, you take the reins of power and you don't have the luxury of passing the buck. The blame game has been part of Washington politics for as long as anyone can remember. The current president is ALWAYS responsible for the security of the country whether he chooses to keep past appointments or not. Look at how Reagan took credit for the Iranian hostages release even though he had nothing to do with the Ayatollah's decision to release them as soon as Carter was gone. That's politics, rake in the good while distancing yourself from the bad regardless of the truth.