When second-quarter economic reports came out at the end of July, President Bush stepped forward to take the credit. “Because this administration has acted firmly, our economy is growing,” Bush said at a rare press conference. Bush’s claims were accompanied by reports from the media and opinions from economists that suggested that the economy may finally have turned a corner.… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (16)Page 1 of 1 pagesMr. Baker’s article is right on the $$$. Bush’s economical policies are an dead-end. Unlike FDR, Mr. Bush only looks after his neo-con elk’s corporation profits. The American working calss is never on his agenda of economy policies. I billion $ spent on Iraq every week, why not use the money for US job creation? Why can the US govt develop new energy technologies that we don’t have to depden on middle East’s oil outputs? Bush has got to go, hey no to WAR! “Bring them out” said by Bush. I don’t see Bush’s children fighting in Iraq nor Hilly-Billy-burton VP—Dicky’s.
Posted by james yang on Aug 25, 2003 at 4:54 PM But not unnoticed by voters.
Most people I know who were for Bush early on want the son-of-a-bitch out of office for this reason and, oh yeah, the illegal invasion of Iraq.
I hope we all speak against this and vote him out in 2004.
Posted by neil on Aug 26, 2003 at 2:41 AM The bulk of the Bush tax cuts, skewed to the wrong income class, seems the only plan at hand this admn. has for addressing unemployment/job creation. China’s emergence as a base for low wage manufacturing will continue to steal jobs from here, as will corporate shifting of previous in-house work (accounting, IT etc.) overseas to India and other countries to reduce costs. Small businesses create the bulk of the new jobs, yet they are pressured as well by rising health insurance costs etc. and many times don’t pay as well as corporate or manufacturing jobs. Retaining jobs of these types is important and by relegating the bulk of the tax cut to the wealthy probably won’t help much, if at all. Few will expand employment on the basis of a tax cut as tax policy can change on a whim. Capital spending won’t rise meaningfully in the face of over-capacity or lack of demand. To be a consumption based economy relies on a stable job base and steady to rising incomes. Exporting jobs overseas will continue to pressure both and a tax cut won’t solve that, so some other ideas need to be examined and soon. Though most people will see some relief in varying degree due to the tax cuts, that is only true if you have a job, or are wealthy and don’t need a job.
Posted by e sorensen on Aug 26, 2003 at 10:37 AM The people in power are so far removed from the real working class that it is impossible for them to understand our misery. Being a college graduate in an economic system which does not value education is very disconcerting, especially when I find it difficult to pay all of my bills. I feel that the system has failed me and many others who are forced to take low-paying jobs to survive. Not that I expect to live a lavish lifestyle, but it would help if services that we really need weren’t so unattainable, that those in power really were concerned with the well-being of all working citizens.
Posted by abel garcia on Aug 26, 2003 at 3:33 PM Everyone despised Clinton but anyone could find a job.
Everyone loves Bush but no one can find a job.
WHAT’S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE????
Posted by Tim Snyder on Aug 27, 2003 at 1:43 PM After reading this story it has made me think of why did the U.S and the U.K jointly invade Iraqi to bring Democracy to it when America struggles to maintain it. This Story just goes to show that the position of President of the U.S is for sale and is a wise investment for any Multi-national company who wises to be well looked after by the federal government. Vietnam is more of a democracy than the U.S.
Posted by James Foxwell on Aug 28, 2003 at 12:50 PM The tax-cut plan has been tried and has worked before to get us out of recession (when Reagan was prez), why won’t it work this time?
Isn’t this plan designed to help working Americans anyway?
I think the people on this board don’t know many wealthy people, this is only because they have this idea that the wealthy are people who inherit a lot of $$$. There are some people who are like that, but the heavy majority of those who are wealthy busted their butts from the time they were in high school and college to get where they are today. Many of these people worked 50-60 hours a week so they can climb their company’s ladders, and then as execs. still work their asses off, why should they have to give money away when none of these huge tax and spend initiatives ever work?
Posted by john on Aug 28, 2003 at 1:41 PM It’s information like this that makes me wonder what it’s going to take for the masses of Americans to wake up and see that the hero (Pres. Bush) they’ve infused in their minds is nothing more than another self-serving politician. Mr. Bush has not changed his spots, and his pattern of behavior does not seem to be headed towards a change. It’s apparent that a rise in unemployment effects low income families first and mostly, and dominoes into a rise in crime and health problems...but hey, as long as there are pretzels in the White House, there’s always hope.
Posted by Indira on Aug 28, 2003 at 10:13 PM In the meantime, BOTH parties refuse to curtail mass illegal and legal immigration. Do these so called elected officials not know that adding MORE people to our nations workforce does NOTHING to help the American worker find a job? Surely they most know that by flooding the market with new potential employees the lower skilled workers will be hurt the most? I am sure they know.. they also know that cheap labor means more profits for the corporate moguls. Both parties are despicable.
Posted by chet polwin on Aug 30, 2003 at 9:28 PM In the meantime, BOTH parties refuse to curtail mass illegal and legal immigration. Do these so called elected officials not know that adding MORE people to our nations workforce does NOTHING to help the American worker find a job? Surely they most know that by flooding the market with new potential employees the lower skilled workers will be hurt the most? I am sure they know.. they also know that cheap labor means more profits for the corporate moguls. Both parties are despicable.
Posted by chet polwin on Aug 30, 2003 at 9:28 PM hey neil, at least i care about people who work hard for what they get. And by the way Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society program was the biggest tax and spend in our country’s history and that didn’t change the poverty line one bit.
The fastest way to fix the economy has always been to cut taxes. However the most effective is to properly educate people about economics, something that is not currently being done, as the government only throws money to fix education.
Posted by john on Sep 1, 2003 at 9:38 AM John,
You seem unaware of the redistribution of wealth that has been happening since the 70’s. Look at http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h01.html If you study these tables, you’ll find that the top 20% of households in the USA have gone from 40% of total national annual income to 50% in about 30 years, in small, steady annual increments. That’s a serious trend, one that threatens to turn our democratic system into just another 3rd world dictatorship with a few ultra-wealthy people in control. Think for a good long time about how to solve that, and you may wind up on the other side of the so-called “welfare state” debate.
Posted by ralph on Sep 2, 2003 at 5:05 PM I agree with you on education. It’s a mess.
I’ve never seen figures where tax cuts have done nothing more than benefit big business and the wealthy who own them. About the hard-working comment--it doesn’t matter, it’s not the point.
And if tax cuts were such an incentive for large corporations to help boost the economy by hiring more workers, why are we still losing jobs?Okay so maybe you care about people who’ve worked hard and now have wealth. I care about working people with no money and little hope in the future to get more.
Posted by neil on Sep 3, 2003 at 12:19 AM john, it’s obvious to most that many people do not know very many rich people because there are fewer rich people than the average minimum-wage earner. and i don’t know where you get your information from but reagonomics did not work because the rich do not automatically spend more when they have more; an assumption made by you and your republicans.
Posted by The Dude on Sep 7, 2003 at 3:00 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Dean Baker
- Productivity: Is The Boom Over?
- Victory in the Medicare Drug War?
- Numbers Before Politics
- The Falling Dollar
The solution, not the problem - Cutting Our Benefits
Bush begins second term by attacking Social Security - The Economy
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1968 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2003 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
