- Joined
- Jun 7, 2005
First, Did you really mean what I bolded? Or is that a typo? If it's a typo, proofread. .
Sorry it was a typo.
Sometimes even when I proofread I miss the typo.
First, Did you really mean what I bolded? Or is that a typo? If it's a typo, proofread. .
Well, admission is the first step.
Is your first sentence a typo? Just wondering-didn't see it corrected.
.
It was a typo. I have typo. I have dylexia and often will leave a letter out of a word or a word out of a sentence and even when I proof read I sometimes miss it and minutes, hours, days later when I read the sentence That is when I see my my error.
Thanks for catching my miistake.
I apologize to all who read my error.
That was not my intention.
Thanks for clarifying. I did think it was a typo but wanted to make sure.
Let me tell you, I am the world's worst typer, so I can sympathize!
Really? Have you ever studied economics??
The reason we pulled out of the depression was because of war. War creates jobs. Weapons manufacturers, technology manufacturers, all have business because of contracts through the US Government. Where do you think all the money we spend on war goes?
Not to mention all the jobs that are created within the military while at war.
Also, while over there, our men and women have to be fed, clothed, etc. All those things are creating contracts with AMERICAN companies. Directly helping the American economy.
You should have done some Googling before writing this. For your reading pleasure:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html
Economists used to think that wars were good for the economy, a notion born out of memories of how the massive spending of World War II helped bring the United States and the world out of the Great Depression. But we now know far better ways to stimulate an economy -- ways that quickly improve citizens' well-being and lay the foundations for future growth. But money spent paying Nepalese workers in Iraq (or even Iraqi ones) doesn't stimulate the U.S. economy the way that money spent at home would -- and it certainly doesn't provide the basis for long-term growth the way investments in research, education or infrastructure would.
Did President Bush's policies lead us into this recession?
I'm not a Bush fan, but I certainly don't put all the blame on him for the economic fallout.
You should have done some Googling before writing this. For your reading pleasure:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html
Bush and Congress cut taxes, especially on the rich...
I was NOT
trying to bash President Bush.
I was trying to refresh my memory on steps that President Bush used to try to avert the deline of our economy when I happened upon the Times poll.
In 2003 President Bush passed the Jobs Growth Tax Relief.
Most of us got a tax cut of $289 for the year.
The top 1% (those making over $1 million) recieved a tax credit of $30,000 each.
In 2008 most of you wh omade under $100,000 recieved a stim check up to $600 each , $1,200 a couple with an extra $300 for each child .
Of then after stating our economy was strong all of a sudden with no warning from the Bush adminstration it was critical that we bail the banks out because they were failing !
How does the war in Iraq help the US economy???????
Have you ever studied economics? War destroys wealth, it does not create it. You're arguing the fallacy of the broken window.
In fact, on a percentage basis, the poorer folks got a much bigger cut than the wealthy (from 15% to 10% compared to 39 to 33).[/b]
It's math like that which shows how qualified Republicans are to talk about the economy.
BTW it was the huge Cap Gains/Div cuts that gave the wealthy a huge % drop in effective tax rate paid.
Huh? Dropping from 15 to 10 is a bigger cut than 39 to 33.
So your point would be???
My point is that a 6% rate reduction is bigger then a 5% reduction.
Maybe the education funding should not have been cut in the final bill
You conveniently ignored the huge cap gains/div cuts also.
Well, you could look at it that way but the effect is much different.
Going from 15 to 10 is a 33 percent reduction. Going from 39 to 33 is 11 percent reduction. I think that's how most people would look at it.
And I didn't ignore it the cap gains/div cuts. "Rich" people still pay the lion's share of the tax burden.
You don't need proof. Economic recessions come years in the making. It's simple. The anomaly that caused this mess was around way longer before Bush was even governor. You can't normally point your finger at someone or something, unless it's Paul Volcker of the early 80s...Proof?
I don't necessarily doubt what you're saying, except your saying so without any real reason to believe it, doesn't make any sense.