Columnist: Bush has it right on taxes, economy

Continued from main article above....


The mainstream media won't report the economic good news. And many on Wall Street don't even want a strong economy, for fear of more rate increases from the Federal Reserve. The day after the president's Camp David message, the New York Times editorial cried, "Hold the champagne" and proceeded to obsess about a slowdown in housing.

In actuality, I'm a bit concerned about the slowdown in housing thanks to the tightening financial policies of the Federal Reserve, but it doesn't obliterate the relatively good news and relatively good health of the U.S. economy. Of course I don't expect the mainstream media would ever talk about such things because they are good news for Bush and Republicans in general.


There's no counting how many recessions Times columnist Paul Krugman has predicted, but Mr. Bush was exactly right to point out the 4 percent real gross domestic product growth during the first half of 2006, brisk productivity rates, 5.5 million new jobs over the past three years and a historically low 4.8 percent unemployment rate.

The same could be said about the Clueless Wonder of JoeUser, or a bunch of Clueless Wonders in the typical hangouts of the Democrat weenies and ultra liberal whiners and Bush bashers -- though the old saying is even a broken clock is right twice a day, I don't think many of us have ever seen those folks right even once.

Oh, I would also add here that I wouldn't expect much other than mistakes and inaccurate information to flow forth from the bastion of all that is truthful and accurate in reporting (the New York Times) anyway...

Anyway, continuing....


Mr. Bush's critics say he's whistling past the graveyard. But the president rightly insists, "The entrepreneurial spirit in the country is strong, and that's good for America."
Mr. Bush inherited the Internet bubble meltdown from the Clinton years, as well as the corporate scandals. Then came the attacks of September 11, 2001, and the ensuing war. But the Bush recovery also followed suit, the result of slashing high marginal tax rates on investment in mid-2003.
And the recovery continues. Recent strong numbers for retail sales and industrial production suggest a 3-1/2 percent economic growth rate in the second half of 2006, a far cry from soft-landings, hard-landings or the recession scenarios that are beginning to proliferate.

Hmmmm, searching for some bad news here, but not seeming to find any....


And when the president says economic growth has had a positive effect on the budget, he is right again. Tax receipts are growing around 14 percent for the second straight year, the biggest gain in a quarter-century. Income-tax collections, bolstered by the success of owner-operated business entrepreneurs and other self-employed, are helping lift these revenues. These folks, who prefer unincorporated Subchapter S or limited-liability company partnerships, are the ones who show up in the household survey of employment -- which is at a record high.
Meanwhile, non-withheld revenues from lower-taxed capital gains and dividends are paying for themselves. Total tax receipts in 2006 will come in around $2.4 trillion, roughly $400 billion above the tax-collection peak of 2000.
The Congressional Budget Office may now acknowledge that deficit projections were $100 billion too high, but it maintains only higher taxes in the next 10 years will solve the budget problem. This defies common sense. If it pays less to work and invest after-tax, as implied by the CBO scenario, does anyone truly believe people would work harder to expand the economy? If that were the case, why not raise tax rates back to 70 percent, where Ronald Reagan found them, or 91 percent, where John F. Kennedy first had them? The CBO thinking begs credulity.

I'm guessing and betting that these CBO types are the same ones that fuel the resident Bush basher here at JU, and who provide materials for Democratic talking points and other liberals that want to take swings at Bush any way they can.

Again though, I don't seem to see any real bad news in the actual numbers shown above. In fact, just the opposite -- HIGHER REVENUE than was ever projected by the CBO. How could they be so wrong, and why aren't some bashers making apologies for their incredible errors in judgement and wrongful prognostications? Nevermind, we know that ain't likely to happen.


The remainder of the original material is interesting too, though it diverges from discussion on the main point and isn't reproduced here so as to avoid going beyond the reaches of fair use.

Oh, lest I get any of those "Who the heck is Lawrence Kudlow and why should what he says be considered important...." comments/questions:

Lawrence Kudlow is host of CNBC's "Kudlow & Company" and is a nationally syndicated columnist.


He is a well respected economics and business oriented commentator, at least in most circles.

Most conservatives agree.  But that is about the only thing they agree on.  Iraq, NCLB, Perscription Drugs, and others are where some part ways.

Better look again. The economic news is NOT GOOD unless you are wealthy!

http://patrick.net/housing/crash.html

http://www.theburstingbubble.com/

http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/08/news/economy/fed_rates/index.htm

http://www.house.gov/georgemiller/middleclass/middleclass.html

Add this one:

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Ah, pot shots from the peanut gallery. I knew it wouldn't take the clown long to find his way here and try to turn this location into a circus, but oh well. Thanks for the list of completely and totally unbiased references to support your (and their) wild accusations and bogus claims about the economy. I am sure those fine resources are absolutely and totally correct in their depictions of a sinking ship... NOT.

Thanks for stopping by and *trying* to counter the points raised, but bring more than stale and biased arguments that have already been refuted next time.

For the record, btw, I am FAR from what would be considered "wealthy" but the economy looks pretty damned good to me. While I wish that I wasn't about to get bent over the log by BGE for higher electric prices, I squarely place the blame at the ungodly price increases there on the backs of the idiot Democrats in the Maryland Legislature, along with their friend, Mayor and Governor wannabe Marin O'Malley and the previous idiotic Democratic Governor who implemented an electricity deregulation plan and then never fixed it after seeing what happened in California.

Other than that particular issue, I have a good job that pays a fair wage and covers my needs. I have medical insurance, dental insurance and the like, a roof over my head and a vehicle to drive to and from work. Damn, I guess I better stop before you correct me and point out that I am *the wealthy* type that did benefit from the Bush economy. (After all, in the Democratic circles, Wealthy = have job paying more than minimum wages, or Wealthy = got back even a dime from Bush tax cuts....)

Ah, pot shots from the peanut gallery. I knew it wouldn't take the clown long to find his way here and try to turn this location into a circus, but oh well

hey!  No one is taking his bait!  He has to find other outlets.

hey! No one is taking his bait! He has to find other outlets.

I know, isn't that wonderful?

I wonder just how much he's had to reduce the price of that worthless tome of his? Perhaps that is why he is decrying the economy so badly. Failed authors probably would feel that the economy isn't good right now

Meanwhile I applaud the folks that have been practicing constraint and have been letting his articles wither on the vine and die of loneliness. Couldn't happen to a more deserving fellow.

The first two links are about the housing situation, which is out of control, but doesn't actually mean the economy hasn't been getting better and better throughout Bush's term.

Just think how much more harmful the housing situation would be, if the rest of the economy weren't doing so well!

The third link is to an article about the Fed not raising interest rates... this is a bad thing.. how?

The fourth is an article from the House of Representatives(?) arguing that Bush's economic policies are harming middle class families. At best, this article is a push with Terps' article. Taken together, they may kinda cancel each other out. Not a very strong rebuttal, but at least it's something.

And the fifth link is a "national debt clock", which certainly makes the national debt look like a big scary pile of doom, but doesn't say much about the economy, only about how the federal government is spending its share of the new wealth that's being created. And the fact is, all the economic indicators do clearly indicate that new wealth has been created throughout Bush's presidency at a pretty good rate.

I honestly wouldn't mind discussing the housing situation or the national debt, and what Bush could have or should have (or could, or should) do about these problems. Indeed, my favorite conservatives consistently bash Bush for his spending habits and his failure to hold Congress to account for their profligacy.

Certainly such a discussion would be a pleasant change of pace from topics like Bush's responsibility for all the trouble in the world, and whatnot.

CNN had a story about the drop in housing market which holds the possibility of a real economic disaster for middle income Americans

CNN had a story about the drop in housing market which holds the possibility of a real economic disaster for middle income Americans

Do you really have to prove you are a moron?

Ok, let me back off a bit and not be so quick to name call, but how about thinking through this straw man argument a bit before trying to use it.

You complain here, or try to claim here that the drop in the housing market is bad, and a potential economic disaster for middle income people. Are you really going to say that when you could just as easily be complaining that the rapid rise in housing cost was destroying the opportunity for the middle class to get a new home?

Seriously, the housing market has been fairly radically slowed. It is absolutely one of the first victims of a raise in interest rates and a tightening of the money supply. For that though, you should be pointing straight at Bernanke. Now, once you do, perhaps you should be thanking him, for if he and his compatriots didn't tighten the money supply, didn't raise the interest rates, and didn't have those changes slow down the housing boom then housing prices would be continuing to skyrocket, and lower income and middle income families would continue to find themselves unable to afford to buy a home at all.

Are some people getting pinched now because they jumped into an over-heated market and were somewhat speculative in their home purchases? Yes, but perhaps those people should be paying a bit of a price for over buying and over reaching on their home purchases (purchases of their homes).

But again, you can't have it both ways. You can't (as you've done in the past I am sure) claim that the housing market was nuts and that it was all Bush's fault (you've definitely blamed him for everything else) and then cry because it's been brought back to Earth. And again, for the record, the decline in home building and home pricing will benefit people at the lower end of the spectrum much more than those at the higher end. People that were priced out of the market will see opportunity that they would not have had otherwise.

So, try your argument if you want, but be prepared to be called for flip-flopping more than John Kerry (or perhaps more than a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Model on a shoot down in the tropics!).

CNN had a story about the drop in housing market which holds the possibility of a real economic disaster for middle income Americans

Gee! I am going to respond to Col Klink! (but at least on another's blog!).

Hey Col klink, what happens after a wild runup? Well, unless it continues, the MARKET COOLS! In other words, we had a super heated RE market for the past 2.5 years. RE was selling like Hot cakes! But it cooled. So things are back to normal (don't look for the MSM to report that). Which means Housing sales are NORMAL now. They were HYPER INFLATED before.

Quite simply (since I have family in RE and you are just a putz) things are back to NORMAL. So yes, we have "armegedon" in the house market since things are back to normal and not super heated.

But here is a clue for you, oh clueless one. My House ran up about 50% during that time. Guess what? It still is worth that! I just chose not to sell it now as it is a BUYERS market (that happens every few years or so). But it still RETAINS ITS VALUE!

WHy? because the market has cooled for SELLING. Not collapsed.

And Finally Col Klink, I AM NOT RICH! But you cannot understand that.

My Neighbor is selling. For $100k over the price of 3 years ago. It is taking time, but he is willing to wait. And he will get it. Because, while it is a BUYERS market, it is not a depression. He is not going firesale. Just waiting, and he will get it. Something you never will.

But again, you can't have it both ways

Go terp go!  We posted at the same time!  but I like your answer a lot!

No problem Dr. Guy, good that he's getting the education on both sides though it won't stop him from trying to have his cake and eat it too. He'd like to have us forget that he'd be complaining about the home prices (on the upside) if the market wasn't cooling, but too bad for him we're not dumb enough to fall into his trap.

That is something I'm going to call him on whenever possible, but like you, not in his own space. Why bother competing against the double speak there when it never does anything but give him a few more comments to answer?

If you believe everthing that he says, then you are as dumb as he is!

"He who blindly believes, will become a slave of his fate" specially if he blindly believes a politician.

See, where I live, and where my best career options are, housing is unbelievably expensive. We're renting, and even renting is a huge drain on the budget.

My wife and I CANNOT WAIT until the bottom drops out of the housing market, the bubble bursts, and we can afford to buy a decent home of our own.

As a middle-income American, I have no idea how Gene thinks that the current housing prices are a good thing for us.

I have no idea how Gene thinks that the current housing prices are a good thing for us.

Just 6 months ago, he was arguing how they were so bad.  Anything to hate bush.  He contradicts himself even in the same post!

How exactly do low taxes not benefit the poor?

But more to the point, how exactly do the rich owe the poor anything?

I am far from what I consider rich, well off yes, but rich? hardly.

My home has leaped upwards 150,000 in the past 4 years, does that make me happy? yes it does.

Homes are taking longer to sell but the prices have seen no real decline. The ones that might get hurt a little are the ones that bought homes on speculation, they will have to wait up to 6 months to sell where as it only took less than one month just six months ago.

as usual gene is blowing more noxious fumes out of his ass, looking for somehow, anyway to blame everything on BUSH.

The ones that might get hurt a little are the ones that bought homes on speculation, they will have to wait up to 6 months to sell where as it only took less than one month just six months ago.

Exactly!  The Flippers!  My Aunt put their house on the market.  No pressure.  They have an asking price.  And are not budging.  Will it sell in a month?  probably not.  But it will sell.

I doubt that Bush can even put on his shoes and socks correctly, please spare us praise of this embarassing president..please?

I was just thinking that we are about due to see a thread from the Clueless One telling us how the falling oil prices are going to be devestating for the economy in some way (it's about the same as his complaints about Housing presented above).

As to anonymous bashers, bring it on, feel free to show your envy here....

Housing prices did increase too fast. However, people who purchased homes at the high end are now faced with a home that may be worth less they paid for it or worth less then their mortgage balance.

Others refinanced or took a second mortgage predicated on the higher value and now have a problem. New home construction has slowed because of the number of existing home on the market and that impacts ALL sectors of the economy in a VERY negative way.

If you think that a major slow down or worse in housing will not have a negative impact on the overall economy you are just in denial. The higher interest rates, higher energy and medical costs add to the problems of the slumping housing market and they HIT the middle income families. If the economy slows the smaller Federal deficit Bush dreams about will go up in a puff of smoke.