Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: Re: Hmm you did not have good enough credit to get a card before they started giving cash back . | |
|
Author: Oropan |
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 12:03:44 11/11/07 Sun In reply to: Bev 's message, "Hmm you did not have good enough credit to get a card before they started giving cash back ." on 14:08:54 11/09/07 Fri "a tax code that has become hideously biased in favor of the rich" What a bunch of crap!!! The top 1% of income earners pay 30+% of the tax bill and the bottom 40% of income earners pay ZERO!....that's supposed to be biased in favor of the rich???????????????????????????????????? >just teasing however credit card co have not always >given cash back . > > Here is a article from vanity fair stating as many on >this board have maintained that future generations >will pay for the bush and rep congress excess of the >past years. > >Reckoning >The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush >The next president will have to deal with yet another >crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A >Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a >generation-long struggle to recoup. >by Joseph E. Stiglitz December 2007 The American >economy can take a lot of abuse, but no economy is >invincible. Illustration by Edward Sorel. >When we look back someday at the catastrophe that was >the Bush administration, we will think of many things: >the tragedy of the Iraq war, the shame of Guantánamo >and Abu Ghraib, the erosion of civil liberties. The >damage done to the American economy does not make >front-page headlines every day, but the repercussions >will be felt beyond the lifetime of anyone reading >this page. > >I can hear an irritated counterthrust already. The >president has not driven the United States into a >recession during his almost seven years in office. >Unemployment stands at a respectable 4.6 percent. >Well, fine. But the other side of the ledger groans >with distress: a tax code that has become hideously >biased in favor of the rich; a national debt that will >probably have grown 70 percent by the time this >president leaves Washington; a swelling cascade of >mortgage defaults; a record near-$850 billion trade >deficit; oil prices that are higher than they have >ever been; and a dollar so weak that for an American >to buy a cup of coffee in London or Paris—or even the >Yukon—becomes a venture in high finance. > >And it gets worse. After almost seven years of this >president, the United States is less prepared than >ever to face the future. We have not been educating >enough engineers and scientists, people with the >skills we will need to compete with China and India. >We have not been investing in the kinds of basic >research that made us the technological powerhouse of >the late 20th century. And although the president now >understands—or so he says—that we must begin to wean >ourselves from oil and coal, we have on his watch >become more deeply dependent on both. > >Up to now, the conventional wisdom has been that >Herbert Hoover, whose policies aggravated the Great >Depression, is the odds-on claimant for the mantle >“worst president” when it comes to stewardship of the >American economy. Once Franklin Roosevelt assumed >office and reversed Hoover’s policies, the country >began to recover. The economic effects of Bush’s >presidency are more insidious than those of Hoover, >harder to reverse, and likely to be longer-lasting. >There is no threat of America’s being displaced from >its position as the world’s richest economy. But our >grandchildren will still be living with, and >struggling with, the economic consequences of Mr. Bush. > >Remember the Surplus? >The world was a very different place, economically >speaking, when George W. Bush took office, in January >2001. During the Roaring 90s, many had believed that >the Internet would transform everything. Productivity >gains, which had averaged about 1.5 percent a year >from the early 1970s through the early 90s, now >approached 3 percent. During Bill Clinton’s second >term, gains in manufacturing productivity sometimes >even surpassed 6 percent. The Federal Reserve >chairman, Alan Greenspan, spoke of a New Economy >marked by continued productivity gains as the Internet >buried the old ways of doing business. Others went so >far as to predict an end to the business cycle. >Greenspan worried aloud about how he’d ever be able to >manage monetary policy once the nation’s debt was >fully paid off. > >This tremendous confidence took the Dow Jones index >higher and higher. The rich did well, but so did the >not-so-rich and even the downright poor. The Clinton >years were not an economic Nirvana; as chairman of the >president’s Council of Economic Advisers during part >of this time, I’m all too aware of mistakes and lost >opportunities. The global-trade agreements we pushed >through were often unfair to developing countries. We >should have invested more in infrastructure, tightened >regulation of the securities markets, and taken >additional steps to promote energy conservation. We >fell short because of politics and lack of money—and >also, frankly, because special interests sometimes >shaped the agenda more than they should have. But >these boom years were the first time since Jimmy >Carter that the deficit was under control. And they >were the first time since the 1970s that incomes at >the bottom grew faster than those at the top—a >benchmark worth celebrating. > >By the time George W. Bush was sworn in, parts of this >bright picture had begun to dim. The tech boom was >over. The nasdaq fell 15 percent in the single month >of April 2000, and no one knew for sure what effect >the collapse of the Internet bubble would have on the >real economy. It was a moment ripe for Keynesian >economics, a time to prime the pump by spending more >money on education, technology, and infrastructure—all >of which America desperately needed, and still does, >but which the Clinton administration had postponed in >its relentless drive to eliminate the deficit. Bill >Clinton had left President Bush in an ideal position >to pursue such policies. Remember the presidential >debates in 2000 between Al Gore and George Bush, and >how the two men argued over how to spend America’s >anticipated $2.2 trillion budget surplus? The country >could well have afforded to ramp up domestic >investment in key areas. In fact, doing so would have >staved off recession in the short run while spurring >growth in the long run. > >But the Bush administration had its own ideas. The >first major economic initiative pursued by the >president was a massive tax cut for the rich, enacted >in June of 2001. Those with incomes over a million got >a tax cut of $18,000—more than 30 times larger than >the cut received by the average American. The >inequities were compounded by a second tax cut, in >2003, this one skewed even more heavily toward the >rich. Together these tax cuts, when fully implemented >and if made permanent, mean that in 2012 the average >reduction for an American in the bottom 20 percent >will be a scant $45, while those with incomes of more >than $1 million will see their tax bills reduced by an >average of $162,000. > >E-Mail Print RSS >Page of 4 > >| >digg thisadd to del.icio.usadd to reddit [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |