Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7244|Nårvei

Source Reuters

Reuters wrote:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush on Friday called for a package of tax cuts and other measures totaling around $140 billion to shore up the fragile U.S. economy.

"This growth package must be built on broad-based tax relief that will directly affect economic growth and not the kind of spending projects that would have little immediate impact on our economy," Bush told reporters at the White House.

"This growth package must be temporary and take effect right away so we can get help to our economy when it needs it most," he said.

Amid bleak reports on retail sales and other data suggesting a possible recession, Bush and the Democratic-led Congress are negotiating to see if they can reach common ground on a plan to shore up growth.

Under consideration in the talks are ideas like tax rebates, incentives for businesses and extensions of unemployment insurance.

Bush's focus on broad tax cuts may be a sticking point in talks with Democrats who want any plan to emphasize help to low- and moderate-income families.

The two sides are still smarting over bitterly fought battles last year over the budget, health care and the Iraq war.

But there is a consensus that the economy, hit by a housing crisis, credit crunch and surging oil prices, is in need of a rescue.
Like spending an xtra $140 billion on taxcuts etc will save the economy - what an idiot!
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
kylef
Gone
+1,352|6927|N. Ireland
What a surprise! Last year of term and now he goes for tax cuts.
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|7170|Salt Lake City

We have had a negative savings rate for quite some time now.  What we don't need is more tax cuts so people will spend more money.  We need people and businesses to shore up their own cash reserves.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6845|'Murka

Tax cuts are being recommended as something to stimulate the economy by making more cash available to the consumer, thus hoping they will increase their spending, boosting economic performance domestically. Saving that money will not stimulate anything.

Tax cuts are one factor that drove increased economic performance prior to the housing issue. Unfortunately, tax cuts will not address the subprime lending issue that caused the mortgage problems.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Hakei
Banned
+295|6429

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

We have had a negative savings rate for quite some time now.  What we don't need is more tax cuts so people will spend more money.  We need people and businesses to shore up their own cash reserves.
Yeah, I'm sure you know more than an entire department that dedicate their lives to understanding the economy.
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7244|Nårvei

FEOS wrote:

Tax cuts are being recommended as something to stimulate the economy by making more cash available to the consumer, thus hoping they will increase their spending, boosting economic performance domestically. Saving that money will not stimulate anything.

Tax cuts are one factor that drove increased economic performance prior to the housing issue. Unfortunately, tax cuts will not address the subprime lending issue that caused the mortgage problems.
Exactly or not ...

Taxcuts to boost personal economy never solved anything on a national level, taxcuts in a economic crisis is just making things worse.

One project to boost economy could be incentives to avoid small businesses going out of business, small businesses are the backbone of any economy and should be a priority to keep alive. And not necessarily by taxcuts.

What you guys need is to stop being so self centered, not caring about each other - a social reform is highly recommended.

I remember making a thread about about the subprime lending issue some time ago before the shit really hit the fan and the response was like "we don't care, it's their problem" and that attitude now have struck the lot of you or soon will.

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 8#p1347138

Last edited by Varegg (2008-01-18 10:55:00)

Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Protecus
Prophet of Certain Certainties
+28|6956
This recession will not be solved by tax cuts.

This recession is unlike any we've had before. It isn't a problem of liquidity (not enough money flowing through the system), the problem is everyone is in debt up to their dome piece.

Throwing money at this recession isn't going to help. A tax cut may get people, what? A couple thousand dollars extra, maybe? Unfortunately, that doesn't really help compared to the average house loan of $300,000.

All this will do is drain even more revenue from the government, which is already billions in debt. How can one debtor bail out another?

Unfortunately, I don't think the government can solve this one. They can set up stronger regulation for next time, but this recession will just have to sort itself out.
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6976|Texas - Bigger than France
Okay, first of all this isn't a tax cut.  Unless Congress votes to overhaul their own rule they put in last year, every tax-related bill must be revenue neutral.

This means if $140B is cut, then $140B is raised somewhere else.  For instance, if Bush wants a $140B tax cut for the Oil industry, then a $140B tax increase must be put on the individuals (for illustration only).  So Congress would have to repeal their own bill from last year.

Second, I went to see an economist talk yesterday, who is predicting a 40% chance of recession.  The recession figures he sees, at the worst would be losing a HALF of a percent for three quarters at most.  If it happens, the economy would rebound by the end of the year.
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|7170|Salt Lake City

Hakei wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

We have had a negative savings rate for quite some time now.  What we don't need is more tax cuts so people will spend more money.  We need people and businesses to shore up their own cash reserves.
Yeah, I'm sure you know more than an entire department that dedicate their lives to understanding the economy.
1. Watch the video clip.
2. Open your mouth.
3. Insert your foot.

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=89591
Yellowman03
Once Again, We Meet at Last
+108|6669|Texas
giving people more credit and extra chances is what got us into this mess...he just doesn't want to be a president that got us into recession twice.
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6976|Texas - Bigger than France

Varegg wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Tax cuts are being recommended as something to stimulate the economy by making more cash available to the consumer, thus hoping they will increase their spending, boosting economic performance domestically. Saving that money will not stimulate anything.

Tax cuts are one factor that drove increased economic performance prior to the housing issue. Unfortunately, tax cuts will not address the subprime lending issue that caused the mortgage problems.
Exactly or not ...

Taxcuts to boost personal economy never solved anything on a national level, taxcuts in a economic crisis is just making things worse.

One project to boost economy could be incentives to avoid small businesses going out of business, small businesses are the backbone of any economy and should be a priority to keep alive. And not necessarily by taxcuts.

What you guys need is to stop being so self centered, not caring about each other - a social reform is highly recommended.

I remember making a thread about about the subprime lending issue some time ago before the shit really hit the fan and the response was like "we don't care, it's their problem" and that attitude now have struck the lot of you or soon will.

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 8#p1347138
The other thing that is linked is the interest rate.  When the Fed lowers the interest rate, the mortgage interest rate goes down too...stimulating construction increasing home ownership.  The dollar's value goes down when interest rates go down.  A lower dollar equates to more exports, and more interest in the stock market.  Both are positive for the current economy (but then there's the future to be worried about).
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6976|Texas - Bigger than France

Yellowman03 wrote:

giving people more credit and extra chances is what got us into this mess...he just doesn't want to be a president that got us into recession twice.
When were we in a recession the first time?
Yellowman03
Once Again, We Meet at Last
+108|6669|Texas

Pug wrote:

Yellowman03 wrote:

giving people more credit and extra chances is what got us into this mess...he just doesn't want to be a president that got us into recession twice.
When were we in a recession the first time?
2001
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6976|Texas - Bigger than France

Yellowman03 wrote:

Pug wrote:

Yellowman03 wrote:

giving people more credit and extra chances is what got us into this mess...he just doesn't want to be a president that got us into recession twice.
When were we in a recession the first time?
2001
Ahh, I looked that up.  Seems the economists haven't agreed which president is to blame.
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7244|Nårvei

Pug wrote:

Yellowman03 wrote:

Pug wrote:

When were we in a recession the first time?
2001
Ahh, I looked that up.  Seems the economists haven't agreed which president is to blame.
What Bush to blame you mean ?

Seing as Clinton was the one to first get a balanced budget for many many years i'm sure he is the one you'd like to blame no ?

Pug wrote:

Okay, first of all this isn't a tax cut.  Unless Congress votes to overhaul their own rule they put in last year, every tax-related bill must be revenue neutral.

This means if $140B is cut, then $140B is raised somewhere else.  For instance, if Bush wants a $140B tax cut for the Oil industry, then a $140B tax increase must be put on the individuals (for illustration only).  So Congress would have to repeal their own bill from last year.

Second, I went to see an economist talk yesterday, who is predicting a 40% chance of recession.  The recession figures he sees, at the worst would be losing a HALF of a percent for three quarters at most.  If it happens, the economy would rebound by the end of the year.
It spells out in his speach - taxcuts!

And revenue neutral means nothing in this scenario, cause you can't neutral a taxcut when there is no dollars to neutral it with ...

Last edited by Varegg (2008-01-18 14:03:13)

Wait behind the line ..............................................................
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6925|Northern California

Pug wrote:

Yellowman03 wrote:

Pug wrote:


When were we in a recession the first time?
2001
Ahh, I looked that up.  Seems the economists haven't agreed which president is to blame.
True, hard to know if it was Reagan or W Bush who caused it.  Not sure why they just don't say both of them...
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6976|Texas - Bigger than France

Varegg wrote:

Pug wrote:

Yellowman03 wrote:


2001
Ahh, I looked that up.  Seems the economists haven't agreed which president is to blame.
What Bush to blame you mean ?

Seing as Clinton was the one to first get a balanced budget for many many years i'm sure he is the one you'd like to blame no ?
Hey, go look it up, they are hanging on Clinton in some, and W on others.

And besides that, all of you haters, it seems it was caused by international influence.

And besides all of that, it was awesome both before and after it happened.  So who really gives a shit?
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6976|Texas - Bigger than France

Varegg wrote:

It spells out in his speach - taxcuts!

And revenue neutral means nothing in this scenario, cause you can't neutral a taxcut when there is no dollars to neutral it with ...
Let me help you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7244|Nårvei

Haters ? .... wtf is it with you guys that think people hate you all the time ... are you really that paranoid ?

And if you think the recession in 2001 was a bad one you are in for one huge surprice, but go ahead and just give a shit like always and see where that gets you!
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6976|Texas - Bigger than France
Lol, also in 2001 the recession ended, and a tax cut directed at the middle class went into force.  Must have been a coincidence.
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7244|Nårvei

Pug wrote:

Varegg wrote:

It spells out in his speech - taxcuts!

And revenue neutral means nothing in this scenario, cause you can't neutral a taxcut when there is no dollars to neutral it with ...
Let me help you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO

wikipedia wrote:

Theory Explained
PAYGO is best explained in an analogy of a supermarket that doesn't accept credit cards. When the customer sees something they want to buy, they take the item to the clerk, open their wallet, take out money, and pay for the item - which they then own and can take home with them. If when they open up their wallet they see no money inside, they either don't get to purchase the item, or it is not sold to them because they don't have the money. They would then need to find a way to put more money in their wallet to pay for the item BEFORE purchasing the item.
Are you serious, do you back up your argument with this ?

Pay as you go ? .... this means you have to have money to do anything, anything at all - and you have like 53 trillion dollars in debt my friend if you don't do something drastic as of right now, and your President want to increase this debt with rocket speed to look good his last year and you defend him ?

Marvelous

Pug wrote:

Lol, also in 2001 the recession ended, and a tax cut directed at the middle class went into force.  Must have been a coincidence.
In 2001 what was your national debt, look it up - it's not even close to what you have now ...

And believe me, i don't want this to happen, i just wonder why some of you trust a government that brought this mess upon you, where did it fail not to counter this enormous debt before it got out of hand!

Last edited by Varegg (2008-01-18 14:20:47)

Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6976|Texas - Bigger than France

Varegg wrote:

Haters ? .... wtf is it with you guys that think people hate you all the time ... are you really that paranoid ?

And if you think the recession in 2001 was a bad one you are in for one huge surprice, but go ahead and just give a shit like always and see where that gets you!
All right - a few things

1) Tone doesn't carry well in this format.  "Haters" as in why must everything be doom and gloom?  I didn't mean it as defensive posture as in "fuck you V".
2) 2001 was not bad.  I do not believe that if we do go into a recession, it will be short and slight.  I went to see this guy yesterday: http://www.thredgold.com/ He's on CSNBC all the time talking about the economy.  He said two quarters, if it occurs, and by end of year back positive.
3) Just what exactly can I...as in me personally..."give a shit" to change the economic situation?  Actually I can - I own a biz - I can hire more people.
4) Since the PAYGO rules went into effect, ALL TAX CUTS had a TAX INCREASE in another sector.  I'm a CPA - when the tax law changes, and email shows on my computer telling me the gory details.  I have yet to see a newspaper explain both sides of the equation.
5) Given the PAYGO rules - Bush is asking for a tax cut in certain segments.  This means he's asking Congress to a) raise taxes in other sectors or b) repeal the bill they passed.
6) Also you should know that the Senate already is looking at repealing the PAYGO rules.
jsnipy
...
+3,277|6956|...

It funny how the word "sacrifice" has never came up.
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7244|Nårvei

Nah ... it's just getting to be a normal term that those of us that criticize your government is haters when you run out of good arguments!

And it will be very interesting to follow how this plays through but my opinion is still that most of you think this isn't as serious and that it prolly will be a short recession at worst - worst case is 1929 all over again and that took years, many years to get over ...

Hope i'm wrong of course ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6976|Texas - Bigger than France

Varegg wrote:

Pug wrote:

Varegg wrote:

It spells out in his speech - taxcuts!

And revenue neutral means nothing in this scenario, cause you can't neutral a taxcut when there is no dollars to neutral it with ...
Let me help you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO

wikipedia wrote:

Theory Explained
PAYGO is best explained in an analogy of a supermarket that doesn't accept credit cards. When the customer sees something they want to buy, they take the item to the clerk, open their wallet, take out money, and pay for the item - which they then own and can take home with them. If when they open up their wallet they see no money inside, they either don't get to purchase the item, or it is not sold to them because they don't have the money. They would then need to find a way to put more money in their wallet to pay for the item BEFORE purchasing the item.
Are you serious, do you back up your argument with this ?

Pay as you go ? .... this means you have to have money to do anything, anything at all - and you have like 53 trillion dollars in debt my friend if you don't do something drastic as of right now, and your President want to increase this debt with rocket speed to look good his last year and you defend him ?

Marvelous

Pug wrote:

Lol, also in 2001 the recession ended, and a tax cut directed at the middle class went into force.  Must have been a coincidence.
In 2001 what was your national debt, look it up - it's not even close to what you have now ...

And believe me, i don't want this to happen, i just wonder why some of you trust a government that brought this mess upon you, where did it fail not to counter this enormous debt before it got out of hand!
Ok great...did you bother to read the paragraph after the supermarket?

Here's the short version:
1) The gov't budget must not change.
2) A tax increase must be balanced with a tax cut.  So, if you want to raise taxes on Corporations, you'd have to choose something to decrease.
3) And - ITS A LAW.  It's not my argument.

WHOOPS BIG EDIT:  I'm NOT defending him.  I'm telling you that you are incorrect in saying Bush asked for a decrease in tax revenue.  He's asking for the budget to shift, or he's asking for Congress to repeal the PAYGO rules.

Last edited by Pug (2008-01-18 14:41:12)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard