Economy Set for Best Growth in 20 Years…
July 7th, 2004
I wonder how John Kerry is going to tell us how bad this really is:
The economy appears headed for a banner year despite a springtime spike in energy prices and a recent increase in interest rates.
In fact, many analysts are forecasting that the overall economy, as measured by the gross domestic product, will grow by 4.6 percent or better this year, the fastest in two decades.
There were strong 4.5 percent growth rates in 1997 and 1999, when Bill Clinton was president and the country was in the midst of a record 10-year expansion.
But if this year’s growth ends up a bit faster than that, it will be the best since the economy roared ahead at a 7.2 percent rate in 1984, a year when another Republican president - Ronald Reagan - was running for re-election.
That’s right. Ronald Reagan won pretty good in 1984 too.
With 1.5 million new jobs created since last August, things still continue to look better and better for our economy, with many analysts anticipating 200,000 jobs added per month over the next 6 months, erasing the loss of jobs resulting from the Clinton Recession.
Also predicted is a gradual decline in the unemployment rate, which is expected to move from 5.6 percent to 5.3 by December.
I blame the Bush tax cuts.
July 7th, 2004 at 12:32 pm
YEAH! http://www.independent.org/tii/content/press_rel/press_040624.html
July 7th, 2004 at 12:39 pm
Yeah, damn tax cuts stimulating economic growth and making it harder for Kerry to tell us all how bad it is. Sometimes, ya just can’t catch a break …
July 7th, 2004 at 1:22 pm
“The Bush economy has lost millions of jobs.”
What? Not true? OK.
“The Bush recovery is a jobless recovery!”
Huh? New jobs are being created?
“These are low-paying jobs that no one wants.”
What’s that? Unprecedented economic growth? Best in 20 years?
“HALLIBURTON!”
July 7th, 2004 at 1:45 pm
halliburton would count for much of the %of supposed job growth.
July 7th, 2004 at 1:46 pm
and revenues
July 7th, 2004 at 6:54 pm
Those kind of tax cuts are not the only way to stimulate the economy, hopefully their positive effects will not be negated by the effects of a larger deficit later on.
July 7th, 2004 at 8:48 pm
News Flash: lowering the tax RATE is not the same thing as lowering the tax REVENUES. If I may have the floor:
Say you are governor of a small state with 10 factories whose tax revenues (at, say 10% tax RATE) bring in a million dollars annually each, your tax REVENUES for the year are $10M. If the math is too hard, let me know.
Now, let’s say the people in your state listen to the doom and gloom of the national media and elect a Hillary wanna-be to take your place.
She sees that $10M as free money for the state, so by applying her simpleton multiplication skills, she decides that the tax rate should increase by 50% to 10%, because obviously monies generated x tax rate = tax revenue, and this seems like a sure fire way to increase revenues by 50%. What better way to generate money for the “common good”. It’s so easy! Right?
Wrong. Let’s say 2 out of these 10 companies, now faced with a tax burden doubling the previous years, look elsewhere to set up shop, as to remain here would run them out of business. They find a neighboring state with a lower tax rate and, surprise, your REVENUES are dramatically decreased. The output of the eight factories that remain goes down 25% as they were forced to lay off some employees, and forego pay raises just to stay in business.
So the $1M/yr each factory made before is now $750K/yr. Only eight factories remain, making a total of $6M that year, taxed at the higher rate of 15%. Your tax REVENUES for the year are now $900,000 - a DECREASE of 10% from the previous year. How can that be?
What other benefits did your little “tax the rich” plan bring about?
Well, let’s say each factory employed 60 workers. The year before, you had 600 people employed in your factories. Two factories skipped town rather than pay your higher taxes. There go 120 jobs. The remaining eight factories had to downsize by laying off 25% of their workforce. There go another 120 jobs. You just eliminated 40% of your workforce in that industry. What a proud
Marxistliberal you must be, sticking it to the “rich”.Yeah, John Kerry for president….sure.
July 7th, 2004 at 9:03 pm
Correction: 4th paragraph should read “tax rate should increase by 50% to 15%”
5th paragraph should read “now faced with a tax burden 50% higher than the previous years”.
note to self: proofread.
July 7th, 2004 at 11:25 pm
is this like a mutual masturbation society the economy sucks
July 8th, 2004 at 8:45 am
I’m going out on a limb and guessing that you currently have one of the following: cell phone, video game, cable TV.
You probably also have a computer in your home with internet access.
If the economy sucked, these luxuries would be the first to go among those truly impacted by the economic downturn.
The economy’s fine. Try getting off your ass and working to improve your life, rather than sit their absorbing all the anti-American Bush-is-Hitler drivel beiong force fed to you by the liberal establishment.
It’s not the president’s job to make sure you geta new game for your X-Box every two weeks.
Bush doesn’t “create” jobs. Neither would Kerry.
You want a more comfortable way of life, do something about it. The responsibility is your’s, not the government’s.
Oh, yeah, almost forgot…
Huh huh uh huh…you said “masturbation”. you’re pretty funny, Beavis.
July 8th, 2004 at 9:27 am
mAss Backwards, your example demonstrates exactly what has happened here in Pittsburgh. The Democrats out number the Republicans significantly here and have had control for God knows how long now. And well, they have taxed the shit out of this city and have left it in ruin, almost too the point of bankruptcy. So, the state has stepped in to try and fix the issue, they have required millions in budget cuts, and of course the unions are crying like hell because of the cuts. Nobody, NOBODY, in the Democratic Party sees what has transpired over the last 20 years. They constantly increase taxes and spend more and more. Then when the shit hits the fan, the blame Bush’s tax cuts. Ugh!
July 8th, 2004 at 10:54 am
ST -
Same thing for Massachusetts.
Hi Ho Hi Ho
its off to tax we go!
We’ll dig a ditch
and all get rich
Hi Ho Hi Ho!
July 8th, 2004 at 11:07 am
As always, amen, Matt! Here’s what a friend of mine sent me in the mail a couple of months ago:
“I happened to look at the label of a jar of Heinz sandwich slice pickles. Yep….”Made in Mexico”
Check some of your Heinz products. “Sen. John Kerry keeps talking about U.S. corporations leaving this country and setting up shop in foreign countries, taking thousands of jobs with them.
He is right, because that has happened. However, he is trying to blame it on George W. Bush. As far as I know, Bush has not moved one factory out of this country because he is not the owner of a single factory.
That cannot be said about Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz-Kerry. According to the Wall Street Journal, [u][b]the Kerry’s own 32 factories in Europe and 18 in Asia and the Pacific[/b].[/u]
In addition, their company, the Heinz Company, [u][b]leases four factories in Europe and four in Asia. Also, they own 27 factories in North America, some of which are in Mexico and the Caribbean[/b].[/u]
[u][b]I wonder how many hundreds of American workers lost their jobs when these plants relocated in foreign countries[/b][/u].
[b][u]I also wonder if the workers in Mexico and Asia are paid the same wages and benefits as workers in the United States[/u][/b].
Of course they’re not. However, Kerry demands that other companies that relocate should pay the same benefits they did in the U.S.
Why does he not demand this of the Heinz Company, since he is married to the owner?
If Kerry is elected, will he and his wife close all those foreign factories and bring all those jobs back to America?
[u][b]Of course they won’t. They’re making millions off that cheap labor. ……..[/b][/u]An interesting bit of information regarding Kerry and his claim of the Bush administration sending jobs abroad. Well, it seems that the Heinz Corporation, owned by Kerry’s wife, has 79 plants where it manufacturers products and 57 of the 79 are located in countries outside of the U.S How many U.S. jobs are lost here?
Factories located at: Taipei,Taiwan (makes Heinz baby foods)
Dublin,Ireland;
Paris,France;
Dovarmenez, France;
Lisbon,Portugal;
Madrid,Spain;
Milan,Italy;
Monguzzo,Italy;
Athens,Greece;
Warsaw,Poland;
Pudliszki,Poland;
Wodzislaw,Poland;
Miedzychod,Poland;
Moscow,Russia;
Georgievisk,Russia;
Cairo,Egypt;
Tel Aviv,Isreal;
Haifa,Isreal;
Elst,The Netherlands and 6 other plants there;
Brussels,Belgium;
Dusseldorf,Germany;
Seesen,Germany;
Turnhout,Belgium;
Rovereto,Italy;
Chateaurenand,France;
North York,Ontario,Canada;
Wheatley,Ontario,Canada;
Caracas,Venezuela;
San Jose,Costa Rica;
Johannesburg,South Africa;
Gaborone,Botswana;
Harare,Zimbabwe;
Cheguta,Zimbabwe;
Wellington,South Africa;
Melbourne,Victoria,Australia;
Republic of Singapore;
Auckland,New Zealand;
Tokyo,Japan;
Guangzhov,People’s Republic of China (makes infant cereal);
Qingdao, People’s Republic of China (makes infant foods, ketchup, mayonnaise & puree);
Inchon, South Korea (makes Heinz products and StarKist);
Bangkok,Thailand;
Mumbai,India;
Jakarta,Indonesia;
Surabaya,Indonesia;
Manila, Philippines;
Wanchai,Hong Kong.
Also recently purchased from Bordens these products: Classico Pasta Sauce; Aunt Millies Pasta Sauce; Mrs. Grass Receipt Soups; Wylers Bouillons & Soups.
Think of the conflict of interest a President would have who’s wife owns business interests in all of these countries and others.”
And a bit of my own comment here…what’s this crap that the Dems are supposed to be pro labor and pro union? Oh, they’re “pro union” all right…Union, as in make a [b]union [/b]with a millionare’s daughter, live off her daddy’s money, divorce her after you get tired of her and your church won’t give you an annulment, then play around with Hollywood starletts for awhile, then make another [b]UNION [/b]with a rich man’s widow, and live off [b]HIS [/b]money. Yep, the Dems are “pro union”, but only when that “UNION” benifits their lifestyle!
July 8th, 2004 at 12:03 pm
hahaha
July 8th, 2004 at 12:28 pm
Todd - but thats the point. You have been hoodwinked by a sleazy BILIONAIRE couple who tell you they are for the “common man”!!!! Give me a break - they ARE the problem. NOT the solution. Ever been invited to the Kerry’s for a yacht excusrsion - of course not. And you NEVER will be.
July 8th, 2004 at 2:35 pm
US Department of Commerce
Bureau of Economic Analysis
Government Current Receipts and Expenditures
[Billions of dollars]
2000 tax reciepts:3,125.9
2000 expenditures:2,886.5
2000 personal current taxes:1,235.7
2001 tax reciepts:3,124.2
2001 expenditures:3,056.4
2001 personal current taxes:1,243.7
2002 tax reciepts:2,980.7
2002 expenditures:3,224.0
2002 personal current taxes:1,053.1
2003 tax reciepts:3,012.8
2003 expenditures:3,426.4
2003 personal current taxes:991.4
Tax revenues fell from 2001 to 2002 and have recovered slightly but are still not at the amount before. This is more due to increaves in revenue from corporate taxes, tariffs, and taxes on other forms of production. Income taxes and related taxes decreased in revenue from 2001 to 2002 and 2002 to 2003. Expenditures have increased over all 4 years shown.
Reciepts always fall in a recession and usually rise during a recovery, I’m sure the tax cut has contributed to helping the economy, corporations are certainly doing better off if they can pay more in taxes but personal taxes have still decreased. However some of the recovery could also be contributed to increased government spending. I still hope that the positive outcome of this tax cut will not be negated by larger government deficits in the long run.
http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/TableView.asp#Mid
July 14th, 2004 at 1:38 am
The claim that our economy is growing (or set to grow) at the fastest pace in nearly 20 years is not as impressive as it sounds. In fact, this claim has been gone through some interesting revisions recently. See the analysis at the link connected to this message ( http://home.att.net/~rdavis2/fastgdp.html ).
October 10th, 2006 at 9:12 pm
[URL]http://www.musica-latina.anticoit.org[/URL]
November 4th, 2006 at 10:40 pm
Buon luogo, congratulazioni, il mio amico!