F
Economy Grows at Robust Pace Despite Storms
Economy Grows at Robust 4.3 Percent Pace in Third Quarter Despite Gulf Coast Hurricanes
By JEANNINE AVERSA
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The economy grew at a lively 4.3 percent pace in the third quarter, the best showing in more than a year. The performance offered fresh testimony that the country's overall economic health managed to improve despite the destructive force of Gulf Coast hurricanes.
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
That would be me. Bush's policies have spurred the economy...in the short term. The question is, what is is the cost? Record trade deficits, record budget deficits, ballooning budget deficits, failure to stem increasing health care costs, $8 trillion in national debt...We will pay for this in the future. The Bush economic plan drastically increased costs by expanding the government and cut revenue so that in the short term we can high-five each other about how strong the economy is this month or this quarter while ignoring the inevitable costs in the future. That's why the Bush economy sucks. It fails to have a vision of the future and sells out our children and grandchildren for an extra $1000 in our pocket now.M14 Shooter said:Dont worry. Someone will tell you how badly the Bush economy sucks,.
You're confusing economic policy with fiscal policy.Cremaster77 said:The question is, what is is the cost? Record trade deficits, record budget deficits, ballooning budget deficits, failure to stem increasing health care costs, $8 trillion in national debt...We will pay for this in the future.
The Bush -economic- plan did not have anything to do with expanding the government.The Bush economic plan drastically increased costs by expanding the government...
And increased it in the long term, through economic growth.and cut revenue so that in the short term
Again - seperate issues. You're arguing that increasing spending was part of the plan to grow the ecomomy when in fact it was not.It fails to have a vision of the future and sells out our children and grandchildren for an extra $1000 in our pocket now.
A poor use of words on my part. However, his rampant spending directly affects the nation's economy. You can't separate them. He can say he's cutting taxes to stimulate the economy, but if at the same time he adds on a bloated Medicare prescription drug coverage plan, in the long run, that hurts the economy. Fiscal policy of the federal government and the nation's economy are intertwined.M14 Shooter said:The Bush -economic- plan did not have anything to do with expanding the government.
Where is the evidence that revenue is increased long-term by tax cuts? It's a mantra of neo-conservatives that I've never seen supported. If we eliminated taxes all together, it would be a boon to economic development, but it would decrease revenue to zero. At some point decreasing taxes results in decreased revenue in the long term despite economic growth. Where that point is has never been firmly established, despite what the Republicans keep saying.M14 Shooter said:And increased it in the long term, through economic growth.
These increased revenues, through growth, will negate all your concerns, so long as spendng increases (again, a seperate issue) don't exceed inceases in revenue.
Again, they are intertwined. The federal government accounts for 20% of GDP, and with rising health care costs and rising interest on the debt, that number is projected to increase to as high as 40% before the end of the century. You can't say your economic policy is one thing, then act in ways that undermine that policy. Bush's economic policy is demonstrated by his actions, not the soundbites about what he says his policy is.M14 Shooter said:Again - seperate issues. You're arguing that increasing spending was part of the plan to grow the ecomomy when in fact it was not.
Iriemon said:The fact that the Govt is borrowing about 25% of what it is spending helps the economy.
RightatNYU said:Can you provide a source for this?
Iriemon said:http://cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0
[2004 figures]
Total expenditures: 2.3 trillion.
Deficit: $567 billion.
About 25%.
Deegan said:Err......but this is 2005?
Iriemon said:FY05 (which ended 9/30/05) figures haven't been reported in the summary tables yet. They sould be out in a month or two. The Govt spent a little more money (up 6%) and borrowed a little less, so the figure probably dropped a point or two.
Iriemon said:http://cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0
[2004 figures]
Total expenditures: 2.3 trillion.
Deficit: $567 billion.
About 25%.
Deegan said:Well I believe you will see much improvement, it appears that way in my business anyway, but I am hopeful. I am sure once the war winds down, we can get back on track, nothing is more costly then this action in Iraq, and elsewhere.
Iriemon said:The Iraq war is a major part of the debt. But since 2000, the Bush admin has borrowed $2.3 trillion -- resulting in a 40% increase in the debt overall.
The Iraq war has cost what, about $250 billion? So, even if you are of the view that the Iraq was was a necessary expenditure, it only accounts for just over 10% of the debt increase. Tax cuts have been the big driver (Govt revenues fell dramatically after the tax cuts) and other Govt spending increase makes up the rest.
Iriemon said:The fact that the Govt is borrowing about 25% of what it is spending helps the economy. Lower taxes (remember Bush arguing this as a reason why we needed tax cuts?) and increase spending both can boost economic performance.
The only way to do that is cut spending.With the economy doing well, it is even more inexcusable the Govt is piling on huge additions of debt. When thing are going well is the time to be running surpluses and pay down the debt.
RightatNYU said:The deficit, as it is normally referred to in the media and in most budgetary figures, is the sum of the on budget deficits and the social security surpluses.
That would put the number at 413 billion, roughly 1/6th of expenditures. That's a better ratio than a few years in the 70's, and most of the 80's and early 90's.
Still absurd, I'm agreeing with you there, but I just wanted to point that out.
Lets generously assume that every penny of the ~$450B we've spent on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan was "borrowed".Iriemon said:The Iraq war is a major part of the debt...
But since 2000, the Bush admin has borrowed $2.3 trillion
Iriemon said:That is true, the deficit was "only" $413 billion only if you count SS surplus tax revenues as general tax revenues
RightatNYU said:And if you look at it as a percent of GDP, which is a more telling number, the percent is 3.6%. That's comparable with the past 30 years. Hell, in 2001, Bush pulled a surplus of 1.3%, which beat every year of Clinton's except for 2.
Outlays as a % of GDP has been slowly trending downwards since the 70's as well. That's interesting, I expected it to be the other way...
Iriemon said:Bush's best year, 2001 -- the year after he inherited a surplus budget from Clinton, compares favorable to Clinton's last few years only because Clinton had the good fortune to inherit a $340 billion deficit from Bush1 and the legacy of the Reagan budget policies.
RightatNYU said:Actually, that's not completely true.
Revenues only fell by 140 billion the year after the tax cuts, in no small part due to 9/11. They dropped another 130 the next year, but climbed 100 last year.
The culprit is the spending, which has increased roughly 150 billion each year.
Remember, 9/11 had an estimated long term economic impact of over 1 Trillion dollars...that can't be covered in 4 years.
M14 Shooter said:FY2004
Total spending : $2292.2B
Total Deficit: $412.1B
The FY2004 deficit was 17.9% of the budget, and 3.6% of the GDP.
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0
I'll give you the benifit of the doubt and assume you were...exaggerating.
The only way to do that is cut spending.
We can start with my list, and then if we need to, we can move to yours.
Iriemon said:The true fact is that GDP did not go down after 9/11, which happened at the very end of FY2001:
2000 9817.0 5.9%
2001 10128.0 3.2%
2002 10469.6 3.4%
2003 10971.2 4.8%
2004 11734.3 7.0%
2005 12378.0 5.5%
% +/- GDP never directly corrleates to % +/- revenue.Revenues fell $35 billion in 2001, $138 billion in 2002, and another $71 billion in 2003, for a totall $244 billion decrease in just three years.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?